The Supreme Court as such held in the case Arnold v Britton

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
Case Study
Corporate Law
1/14/2020
University
Student Credentials

Case Study 1
Part 1
1. Introduction
In case where there is an uncertainty where there is an inside meaning to the said contract, in
the year 2015, the Supreme Court as such held in the case Arnold v Britton that the intentions
of the parties as such by the reference where a person who in no manner is connected with the
case will take it and understand in the manner as it is with all the background information that
is available to both the involved parties. Here the intention that is a must for the contract to be
conducted so as to be enforceable (e lawresources.co.ukl, 2019).
Issue
Is the promise made by Sergio to give his son Alexander 5,000 British pounds in exchange
for changing his career from being a chef to a solicitor, legally enforceable?
Rule
Though there are no certain rules in respect with the case as the intention of the contract is
what matters the most. The intention of building legal relations is what is necessary in this
case so as to make a contract enforceable and legal (In Breif, 2020). As specified in Jones v
Padavatton [1968] EWCA Civ 4 it was held that the agreement in question was solely a
domestic one according to which, there is a notion as the parties involved are not really
intending to be in any way be bound with the said agreement. Also, there is no such evidence
in order to cancel out this presumption (e lawresources, 2019).
Application
Choosing a career path is a necessary step in every child’s life, though choosing the one they
have interest in is also required. Hence, the promise made by Sergio is not a binding one, as it
does not fulfil the basic requirements of a legal contract between two individuals. The

Case Study 2
promise made is a verbal promise and also does not fulfil all the requirements a contract that
is enforceable by law or be taken to court if not abided by. As per the case Jones v
Padavatton, the scenario here does in no manner clearly specify any legal intention of the
parties to get indulged in an agreement which is legally enforceable.
Conclusion
These basic requirements include first of all an offer that was made by Sergio, the second
requirement is the acceptance of his son, which was never mentioned if he agreed to, thirdly,
the competency of both the parties involved was never mentioned, and also there is no lawful
subject matter amongst them, it’s just a choice of both the individuals if they wish to do so or
not, and there is definitely an obligation between the parties to conduct a certain job, where
one has to provide compensation and the other one has to complete the task of becoming a
solicitor and last but not the least, consideration, which Sergio has agreed upon. Hence, the
promise here is not a one that can be legally enforceable in any form.
2. Introduction
As per the EU Legislation where Working Time Regulations 1998 is concerned, the member
states of the EU need to comply with the certain rules provided by the said legislation so as to
facilitate the work of the individuals as well as avoid exploitation of the employees as such
by the employees in any manner. Moreover, there is another clause that needs to be
mentioned here which is that any kind of consideration cannot be taken up in a retrospective
manner.
Issue
Is the promise made by Sergio to Liam, his secretary so as to pay 500 British pounds in
retrospective manner in exchange for Liam’s lunch hour legally enforceable?

Case Study 3
Rule
As per the Legislation of EU, there is a certain set of rules that needs to be followed by the
member states as such; The WTD or WTR which is the Working Time Regulations is one
such law that has to be implemented by the United Kingdom being a member of EU
legislation. It regulates all the requirements of the employees which include all the rest breaks
or the hours that are included as the working hours as well as also the issues revolving around
the annual leaves where there is a pure intention of protecting the safety and health of the
workers. Apart from these, there is also a clause as in relation with the retrospective way of
providing consideration. The law in general does not allow the consideration to be paid in
retrospective manner (BMA, 2018). As per the EU Legislation every employee is entitles for
an hour’s break after every 6 hours under WTD (Spratt Endicott Solicitors, 2019). As per
the case law of Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank
SAE (DB SAE) there was a need to record the working hours of an individual working for the
firm, so that there are no issues related to working hours recorded and to make sure that
companies of firms are working as per the WTD or the Working Time Directives (EUR -Lex,
2019).
Application
This kind of arrangement is against the work time regulations in United Kingdom there is a
certain time period that has to be provided to the employees working in an organisation for
log time duration as specified in Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v
Deutsche Bank SAE (DB SAE). Therefore, the law shall be applied to the case where Sergio
even agreed to promise so as to pay Liam for extra services of paying him off in retrospective
manner for giving up his lunch breaks. This is in itself on many levels not acceptable under
the certain laws as mentioned above.