Ace the JD Next Exam 2025 – Level Up Your Law Journey!

When the court describes a requirement to determine if a promise benefits a party as intolerable, it suggests that enforcing such a rule is not practical or necessary within the context of contract law. The reasoning is that requiring parties to constantly assess and prove the benefits of their promises would add an unnecessary layer of complexity and burden to legal proceedings. This indicates that the legal system seeks to preserve efficiency and clarity in contract enforcement rather than complicate matters with potentially ambiguous assessments of benefit. Imposing such a requirement could lead to significant obstacles in contract interpretation, creating confusion and inconsistency in legal outcomes. Thus, the implication is that the court views this kind of rule as something that complicates and detracts from the fundamental principles of contract law, indicating it is neither needed nor likely to be practical in implementation.