Talk:Peppercorn (law)

Comment

Isn't this basically "nominal consideration"? --Eastlaw 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Isn't this basically "nominal consideration"? --Eastlaw 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the term

I removed some unsourced info about the history of the term. It was of dubious accuracy anyway, as the term "peppercorn" refers to consideration that is close to, but not quite, worthless; it doesn't make sense that it would have meant the same thing in the Middle Ages when pepper was supposedly valuable. --Guido del Confuso 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does anyone have a source for the origin of the term? --adavidw 03:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary says that it originates in the late 18th century, which is more in keeping with the history of pepper! I would assume it was literal originally.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peppercorn (legal) → Nominal consideration — Nominal consideration is the correct formal legal term, Peppercorn is basically only one type of nominal consideration. —Eastlaw (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose. Peppercorn consideration may be a type of nominal consideration, but it is notable enough in the history of English law to merit its own article. --Friejose (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

If the move is made, the article requires a bit of a rewrite since it is not currently apparent how "nominal consideration" is the topic. — AjaxSmack 05:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources Cited Here

No offense to the "Minority Law Student Association" or the "Hispanic Law Student Association" but lecture notes they post, which were presumably compiled by law students, are NOT proper citations for this or any legal topic. Could someone please work on this?207.181.213.51 (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Improve tag

I have just removed the reference improvement tag from the article. It was added by Thumperward in November 2011 when the article looked like this, with 2 references and a bare url and some unincorporated references listed as resources. Here is the cumulative change to the present version with 15 references including at least one inline citation per paragraph. I am posting here in case anyone has any objections to my action. EdChem (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional cn tags added by Espresso Addict addressed, now 17 references with my cumulative additions. EdChem (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peppercorn (legal) → Peppercorn (law) – To match other disambiguations for legal terminology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Consistency and conciseness. BD2412 T 17:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.