Final answer:
The requirement for consideration to be approximately equal in a contract is false; only something of value must be provided by each party. The U.S. dual court system has positives such as diversity in legal interpretation, and negatives like potential inconsistencies. Local trial courts are generally considered closest to the people.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that courts normally require consideration to be approximately equal on both sides is false. In contract law, consideration must be present for a contract to be legally binding, but the law does not require that the consideration be equal or equivalent in value. What is necessary is that each party provides something of value to the other, which could be anything determined to be sufficient and does not have to have an objective or equal monetary value. This ensures the presence of a bargained-for exchange, which is one of the key elements of a valid contract.
There are several aspects that contribute to the functionality and complexity of the dual court system in the United States. One positive characteristic of having overlapping court systems is that it allows a diverse array of legal interpretations and applications suited to the varying state laws and cultures. However, a potential negative is the inconsistency this may create, as similar cases can have different outcomes in different jurisdictions. Moreover, the court that is considered closest to the people would likely be the local trial courts, as these handle the majority of disputes and issues that directly affect the day-to-day lives of citizens.