# Working for $1 per year

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/working-for-1-per-year/379943>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 10, 2006, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/working-for-1-per-year/379943 "2006-11-10T22:40:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/working-for-1-per-year/379943/41 "2006-11-13T23:44:28Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=Schnitte]  
The consideration theory has some charm to it, but these salaries are common in continental European jurisdictions which do not require consideration for contracts (the mere consent of the parties suffices) as well. I guess it’s just symbolism without any legal relevance.  
[/QUOTE]

In the US, it’s more than mere symbolism. Not every promise is a legally-enforceable contract. If you tell me that you will give me $100 as a birthday gift, and you don’t do so, I cannot sue you for breach of contract.

(for any lawyers playing at home: I’m aware of the detrimental reliance cases, but let’s not complicate things.)

Same disclaimer.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/working-for-1-per-year/379943/42 "2006-11-13T23:56:23Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]  
I always assumed that the consideration of the NDA itself is simply getting to see whatever information is covered by it. The fact that you need that information to do your job is just a happy benefit. This makes sense to me because, if you signed the NDA but then lost your job, you’d still be bound by the NDA (I assume), whereas if the consideration of the NDA were having a job, and you didn’t get to have a job anymore…

Lawyers, how’s my intuition?  
[/QUOTE]

Not badly reasoned, but you missed at the end.

In many (if not most) states, continued employment **is** deemed to be sufficient consideration for such agreements by an employee. If the timeline is something like: 1995-hired 1997-signs NDA 2000-fired, it’ll have continuing, post-2000 effect (assuming it’s otherwise valid).

At least in my state (Illinois), and I don’t think we’re in the minority on this one.

Same disclaimer. Even in Illinois, other factors might make the agreement invalid, so don’t rely on this without further analysis of your situation.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/working-for-1-per-year/379943.md?page=2)