Anthony Maglica founded a machine shop business called Mag Instruments in 1955. In 1971, Claire Hallasz informally helped Anthony run the business. Despite the fact that Claire worked with Anthony to build up Mag Instruments, which was incorporated in 1974, all the shares of the corporation were issued upon formation to Anthony as President and Company Founder. Claire as Secretary was paid £1000/month from January 1, 1974, onward.

Starting on January 1, 1978, the business began manufacturing flashlights and, thanks to their hard work and ideas of Claire, the business boomed to be valued at £200,000,000 on January 1, 1992, when, as a result of a dispute between them, Anthony fired Claire. Claire filed suit for compensation utilizing a variety of legal theories as a cause of action for her case against Anthony.

Plaintiff’s attorney demonstrated that the business grew by £84,000,000 because of the hard work and initiative of Claire. Had Anthony hired a professional new product developer, it would have cost him no less than £4000/month.

Part II. For the following questions assume that the Common Law jurisdiction in the case is that of England & Wales (UK)[1]

1. Suppose that Anthony upon releasing Claire offered her £8,000,000 for past services in product development previously rendered and an ex gratia payment of £4,000,000. 

1. Make arguments for and against past consideration in this case (in which case Claire would be denied recovery beyond the salary she already collected).
2. Identify two cases having precedential value to this case. Explain the nature of the precedential value.
3. Why is stipulating the jurisdiction is England & Wales critical for answering 2 (above)?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1It sounds like Anthony was very generous in his settlement offer to Claire If she was able to prove ... View the full answer