Law For Business Managers Assesment

Running head: LAW FOR BUSINESS MANAGERS
LAW FOR BUSINESS MANAGERS
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

LAW FOR BUSINESS MANAGERS1
Part 1
Issue 1
The main issue that can be raised in context of the case is whether the promise made
by Sergio to his son Alexander would be considered as binding.
Rule 1
The term consideration can be defined under the provisions of the common law of
contract as the exchange of goods, services, promises or money in contingency by one party
in contract upon the other party in support of their side of the deal. (Bix 2017). If there is a
mutual promise between two parties it would constitute to be consideration for both the
parties (Marsh 2017). However if the promise is from the side of one party only and the other
party does not accept the consideration then the agreement would not be considered as being
enforceable (Poole 2016).
This had been discussed by the judges in Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 893 where it
was held that in case the promisor accrues rights, interests or benefits directly by way of any
kind of detriment or loss that has been suffered by the promisee then it would constitute to be
consideration (McDermott 2017).
Application 1
In the given scenario Sergio was seen as to make a promise to his son, Alexander, that
if he forsakes his profession as a chef and could qualify as a solicitor then he would his son a
sum of £5000. Following the judgment in the Currie v Misa (1875) in the given scenario, it
can be observed that if Alexander accepts the offer made by his father he would suffer the
loss of leaving the career of chef he favoured. This detriment would favour Sergio whose

LAW FOR BUSINESS MANAGERS2
favoured profession for his son is to be a solicitor. Therefore the promise would be
enforceable.
Conclusion 1
Thus it can be concluded that the promise made by Sergio to his son Alexander would
be considered as binding.
Issue 2
The main issue that can be raised in context of the case is whether the promise made
by Sergio to his secretary Liam would be considered as binding.
Rule 2
The term consideration can be defined under the provisions of the common law of
contract as the exchange of goods, services, promises or money in contingency by one party
in contract upon the other party in support of their side of the deal (Bix 2017). If there is a
mutual between two parties it would constitute to be consideration for both the parties (Marsh
2017). However if the promise is from the side of one party only and the other party does not
accept the consideration then the agreement would not be considered as being enforceable
(Poole 2016).
One of the major requirements for the successful establishment of a consideration is
that the promise made should be executed either in the present or in the future (FIELD 2016).
In their verdict in the Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234, the judges held that “Past
consideration is no consideration”. Any action done in the past would not be constituting to a
valid consideration.

LAW FOR BUSINESS MANAGERS3
Application 2
In the given scenario Sergio was seen as to make a promise to pay a sum of £500 his
secretary Liam, who had been willing for giving up the lunch hours he was entitled to, for the
last three months if there was a necessity. Following the judgment in the Roscorla v Thomas
(1842) case in the given scenario, it can be stated that it is not a valid consideration as it is
observed that Liam had already gave up his lunch hours for the past three months, which is a
past consideration and according to the judges would not constitute to any consideration at
all.
Conclusion 2
Thus it can be concluded that the promise made by Sergio to his secretary Liam
would not be considered as binding.
Issue 3
The main issue that can be raised in context of the case is whether the promise made
by Sergio to Natasha would be considered as binding.
Rule 3
The term consideration can be defined under the provisions of the common law of
contract as the exchange of goods, services, promises or money in contingency by one party
in contract upon the other party in support of their side of the deal (Bix 2017). If there is a
mutual between two parties it would constitute to be consideration for both the parties (Marsh
2017). However if the promise is from the side of one party only and the other party does not
accept the consideration then the agreement would not be considered as being enforceable
(Poole 2016).
For a consideration to be a good consideration it is required to be at least of some
minimal value (Hoffman and Eigen 2017). There is no obligation for a consideration be