Daniel, a recent college graduate, is on his way home for the Christmas holidays from his new job. He is caught in a snowstorm and is taken in by an elderly couple, who provide him with food and shelter. After the snowplows have cleared the road, Daniel proceeds home. Daniel’s father, Fred, is most appreciative of the elderly couple’s action and 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 elderly couple the $500. Discuss whether the couple can hold Fred liable in contract for the services rendered to Daniel. Miller, Roger LeRoy. Business Law: Text & Cases - The First Course - Summarized Case Edition (p. 244). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.

Case summary:

D is a college alum gets trapped in a blizzard on his way home. He was furnished with nourishment and haven by an old couple and he returned home once the climate was clear. D's dad F guaranteed the couple to pay $500 recorded as a hard copy for their assistance and the couple acknowledged. In any case, as D and F had contrasts later, F denied paying that sum.  

Case investigation:  

Thought: Consideration is the advantage or worth got by the gathering for satisfaction of their guarantee. On the off chance that there is no thought, the agreement isn't enforceable. Following are the components of thought:  

For instance, an individual A guarantees B that he would pay $1,000 for driving him to chip away at that day. Here. An is paying $1,000 for B as an arrival for driving him to work (execution).  

A guarantees him to give him a vehicle as he was graduated. It isn't thought since B didn't vow to perform anything. It is only a present for B from A.  

Past Consideration: The guarantees which were made by a gathering for the presentation of activities in past by another gathering are unenforceable. As there is no anticipated trade component, it is no thought.

Right now, old couple gave haven to D. They neither guarantee D to give cover nor bartered that he ought to give them something to return.  

F guaranteed them to pay $500 as a demonstration of thankfulness for their assistance yet it is a present for their assistance in past. In this way, it isn't past thought.  

Consequently, the couple can't hold F at risk for making the installment for giving haven to his child.