Consideration And Equivalents

| |
|Master en Derecho de la Empresa VII |
|Curso 2010 - 2011 ||Módulo: |Corporation law |
|Unidad docente: |10.2. Consideration and equivalents |
|Alumno: | |
|Profesor:|Alex Stephens / Felicia Bonillo |
|Fecha de entrega: |8/04 /2011 |
|Este ensayo debe seguir las indicaciones previstas y su extensión no debe superar más de dos páginas |

CASE 1QUESTIONS:
I. Was there any consideration to A´s promise?
We could think about what B did for A in the past. Since A´s behavior is based on the kindness of B and this is a past act but according to the rule: past consideration is not a consideration.
The term past consideration is a contradiction in terms. Consideration is essentially a bargained for exchange and parties cannot make an exchangeinvolving something that has already occurred.

II. Moral obligation: Is there any legal obligation based on the fact of having received help or benefit?
Legally speaking, there is not any legal consequence based on the fact of having received help. It keeps at the level of ethics and moral. Assisting is not a legal obligation and therefore is not likely to generate legal obligations; thebeneficiary is not bound to compensate for the received.
However, if the beneficiary, as a result of it, promises something to B, is necessary to take into account the following:
- Promise made in recognition of a prior moral obligation, is not enforceable, so under the doctrine of the consideration that moral obligation is a past consideration, so it is not a valid consideration to A´s promise.- Nevertheless, there is another sector that believes the opposite and recognizes the binding nature of the promise given. The Restatement (Second), however, states that the promise is enforceable "to the extent necessary to prevent injustice" if the promisee has conferred a material benefit on the promisor. In this case A did not ask B to save his life, but he did and now A has a materialbenefit that is his own life. So applying this rule, A´s promise would be enforceable.
Moreover, the case Webb v. McGowin holds the following “In Webb v. McGowin P saved McGowin from death or grievous bodily harm was a material benefit to McGowin. Upon receiving this benefit, McGowin became morally bound to compensate P and as such expressly agreed to compensate P. When the promisee cares for,improves and preserves the property of the promisor, even without a request to do so, it is sufficient consideration for the subsequent agreement to pay for the service because of the material benefit received directly by the party. Once P saved McGowin from death or grievous bodily harm and McGowin subsequently agreed to pay him for the service rendered it became an enforceable contract.

III. Inthis case, could an offer for a permanent job be consider as a consideration for what B did?
IV. Has B made substantial and definite acts reliance on A´s promise?
V. Has B an action for contractual recovery or reliance damages?

This offer could not be consider as a consideration because A is not obliged to give nothing to B. The budget for the existence of a consideration is the...