Cited by

v. Gally, (ruling contracts are enforceable unless the acts to be performed are illegal or contrary to public policy, or if the legislature demonstrated its intent to 11 RABA v. CONNECT, et al. Opinion of the Court prohibit enforcement); Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., (recognizing the court may invalidate contracts if they are oppressive or unconscionable).

Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 29 (App. 2011).

Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 29 (App. 2011).

See Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., –21 ¶¶ 27–28 (App. 2011); –14 ¶¶ 8–9 (App. 2005).

See, e.g., Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 9 (App. 2011); Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., –41 ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2006).

See Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., –21 ¶¶ 27–28 (App. 2011); –14 ¶¶ 8–9 (App. 2005).

Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2011).

See also Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 28 (App. 2011) (citing Shamrock v. Wagon Wheel Park Homeowners Ass’n, ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2003)) (“when [a] homeowner takes [a] deed containing restriction allowing amendment by majority vote, homeowner implicitly consents to any subsequent majority vote to modify or extinguish deed restrictions”)

Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 29 (App. 2011).

See Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 9 (App. 2011).

Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 29 (App. 2011).

Ariz., ¶ 43 (App. 2016) (“[Contractual] consideration need not be of like or identical value, and the court will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration.”) (quoting Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 29 (App. 2011)).

See Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 27 (App. 2011) (internal citations omitted) (the articles of incorporation and bylaws governing a private organization constitute a contract between members and the organization).

“A promise exchanged for a promise is sufficient; consideration need not be of like or identical value, and the court will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration.” Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., , 321 ¶ 29

See, e.g., Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 9, see also Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., -41 ¶¶ 15-16, -51 (App. 2006) (holding argument relating to claim was waived where first raised in motion to recon

See Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶¶ 21–23, (noting procedural unconscionability focuses on “the parties’ bargaining posture or process” whereas substantive unconscionability focuses on whether “’contract terms [are] so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise an innocent party’”).

¶15 We review the superior court’s specific performance orders for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 7, but review questions of contract interpretation de novo, Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 19, Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 358 cmt.

See Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., ¶ 9, (noting that the failure to object to the trial court’s use of a particular doctrine until the motion for new trial waived the issue); –94, –68 (App. 1997) (noting that an argument first raised in a motion for new trial wa

See Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc., (contract); (arbitration clause).