Question

Answer this using the IRAC writing Format

I-Describe the issue at hand (the question being asked)

R-Describe the rule that is applicable in this situation

A-Apply the rule to the facts of yor situation

C-Draw a conclusion

Consideration

Daniel, a recent college graduate student, is on his way home for the Christmas holiday from his new job. He gets caught in a snowstom and is taken in by an elderly couple, who provided him with food and shelter. After the snowplows cleared the road, Daniel proceeds home. Daniel's father, Fred, is most appreciative of the elderly couple's action and in a letter, promises to pay them $500. The elderly couple, in need of funds, accept Fred's offer. Then, because of a dispute between Daniel and Fred, Fred refuses to pay the couple the $500. Can the couple hold Fred liable in contract for the services rendered to Daniel?

Answer 1

ISSUE: A college student Daniel is caught in a snow storm and an elderly couple provides him with food and shelter. When Daniel returns home, then knowing about the gesture of elderly couple, Daniel's father, Fred, in a letter, promises to pay them $500 and couple accepts the offer. However because of issues between Daniel and Fred, Fred refuses to pay the couple the $500, thus the issue arises whether the elderly couple can hold Fred liable in contract for the services rendered to Daniel.

RULE: The rule states that past consideration is considered no consideration; and there is no contract

APPLY: Fred would not be accountable for his promise to pay the elderly couple $500. Additionally, the elderly couple had provided Daniel food and shelter of their own volition, and not on the request of Daniel thus services were rendered with no expectation of a reward and were purely of an altruistic nature, therefore the elderly couple cannot hold Fred liable for breach of contract as they services had been given of their own accord, without any prior or post knowledge of financial capabilities of Daniel.

CONCLUSION: The elderly couple cannot hold Fred accountable because a promise had been made however not entered into any contract. Furthermore the promise to pay them was made with past actions.

Details: The elderly couple cannot hold Fred accountable because a promise had been made however not entered into any contract. Furthermore the promise to pay them was made with past actions. The rule states that past consideration is considered no consideration, thus Fred would not be accountable for his promise to pay the elderly couple $500. Additionally, the elderly couple had provided Daniel food and shelter of their own volition, and not on the request of Daniel thus services were rendered with no expectation of a reward and were purely of an altruistic nature, therefore the elderly couple cannot hold Fred liable for breach of contract as they services had been given of their own accord, without any prior or post knowledge of financial capabilities of Daniel.