Subject: Business Law

Lecturer: Dr. Sean Le

Students name: Mai Phng Thy
ID: BAIU09211

ASSIGNMENT 2
PART A:
1. A and B entered a K for the purchase and sale of goods. A subsequently promised to
pay a higher price for the goods upon Bs refusal to deliver at the contract price.
Answer: A promised to pay a higher price for the goods when B refused to deliver at the
contract price is the clear and obvious thing. And that is what B agreed to. The
consideration on the part of the promisee does not involve any legal detriment for him.
According to the common law, the consideration for the promise must be either a legal
detriment to the promisee or a legal benefit to the promisor . So, there is no legally
sufficient consideration. However, if the contract is agreed voluntarily, since these would
violate the good faith, it can be the valid consideration.
2. A promise in writing to pay a debt, which was due from B to C, upon Cs agreement to
extend the time of payment for one year.
Answer: According the common law, the consideration for the promise must be either a
legal detriment to the promisee or a legal benefit to the promisor. Therefore, this is a valid
consideration because Cs agreement to extend the time of payment a debt is a legal
detriment.
3. A executed a promissory note to her son, B, solely in consideration of past services
rendered to A by B, for which there had been no agreement or request to pay.
Answer: In this case, this is not a valid consideration. The reason is that this is the past
consideration an act done before the contract is made, which ordinarily, by itself, cannot
be consideration for a later promise to pay for the act. The rule is that past consideration is
no consideration. Hence, it is not valid and cannot be used to sue on a contract.

PART B:
Answer:
In my opinion, Mr. Houseller and Mr.Housebuyer win for several reasons. There is no
contract between Mr. Needhouse and Mr. Houseseller. Consideration was paid to
Mr.Houseseller for holding the property for the specified time subject to the right of
Mr.Needhouse to exercise the option whether to buy or not. When the time limit expired,
the contract was at an end and the right under the option was extinguished of course, if that
right were extended by some valid binding agreement, then it could be enforced.
Mr.Needhouse did not attempt to exercise the option and complete a contract of purchase
within the time limited by the written agreement. It is true thet before the expiration of the
time stated, Mr.Houseseller verbally agreed or promised to extend the time for the exercise
of the option from April 1 to July 1, and it was within this latter or extended period and
after the property had been sold and conveyed to Mr.Housebuyer. There was no
consideration for the verbal promise or agreement to extend the time, and therefore such
promise was not enforceable. After April 1 the verbal agreement operated simply as a mere
offer continuing until withdrawn endedby some act of the offeror, Mr.Houseseller. The sale
to Mr.Housebuyer was known to Mr.Needhouse and resulted in a revocation of the offer.