Introduction Neuroeconomics is the study of the economic cognition based on biological micro-foundations. Biological micro-foundations are neurochemical systems and pathways, for instance, brain mechanism, neurotransmitters and genes among others. On the other hand, economic cognition is cognitive activities that are linked to economic observation, beliefs and decision making process (Rustichini, 2005, p. 201). The field of Neuroeconomics is less than a decade old and have approximately two hundred active neuroscientists and economists. Neuroeconomics is different from behavioural economics in that the latter is one-sided (mostly economists) while the former brings together behavioural economists, classical economists and other experts in economics and psychology (Camerer, Loewenstein & Prelec, 2004, p. 555). The most frequently asked question is why economists should study the brain. Maybe it is because they need to enhance utility measurement. Nonetheless, the study of the brain can help in directing and catalyzing the development of new economic models and accelerating the rate of developing these models. Neuroscience provides new experiential method that offers novel empirical tests. Neuroscience measurements assist people in understanding and managing themselves better (Camerer, Loewenstein & Prelec, 2004, p. 555). Therefore, Neuroeconomics provides fundamental changes in economic methods. They go beyond the conventional economic practises to employ psychological insight as a motivation for developing economic models or take into consideration empirical evidences that confront behavioural assumptions of models in economics (Camerer, Loewenstein & Prelec, 2005, p.10; Rabin, 1998, p.12). Weaknesses of standard economics solved by Neuroeconomics Perception of the brain according to Neuroeconomists suggests a number of weaknesses on the concept of preference according to the standard economists. Physiological processes which are controlled by the brain can voluntarily or involuntarily influence individual’s choices and preferences (Camerer, Loewenstein & Prelec, 2004, p. 563). The standard economics’ deduction of preference from a choice perspective does not provide sufficient explanation or discloses everything. Consider an imaginary case of two students, Tom and Jeri, who have both rejected an offer to buy Sausage at a reasonable price. The rejection of sausage reveals a common disutility for the same product. But Jeri refused to buy the sausage because he is allergic to it. Consuming sausage cause him rushes, difficulty in breathing and to an extreme case can even be fatal. On the other hand, Tom refused to buy sausage because he had eaten a lot of it last summer and as a result has developed nausea for eating too much sausage. Since then, his gustatory system links sausage with illness and that is why he refused to buy them even at a reasonable price (Camerer, Loewenstein & Prelec, 2004, p. 564). Even though Tom and Jeri exhibit identical disutility, their physiological account tells us more. Jeri has inelastic demand for sausages and that means even if the offer was extremely good he won’t buy them. Conversely, Tom would attempt a couple of sausages for