5 Coote, above n 1, at 58–59. The test for understanding whether a contract could legitimately be varied was set out as follows. Purchas LJ highlighted the strong public policy grounds which existed in the 18th century to protect masters and owners of ships from being held to ransom by their crews. Glidewell LJ held Williams had provided good consideration even though he was merely performing a pre-existing duty. “The hatred of the youth culture for adult society is not a disinterested judgment but a terror-ridden refusal to be hooked into the, if you will, ecological chain of breathing, growing, and dying. The concept of economic duress provided an answer to Stilk’s old problem. In my judgment, on the facts as found by the judge, he was entitled to reach the conclusion that consideration existed and in those circumstances I would not disturb that finding. Facts: Williams v Roffey Bros concerned a contract to refurbish a block of flats. This can be seen as a pragmatic step which brings the law of contract up to speed with the realities of the commercial world, where it is more efficient for variations to contracts to be legally binding rather than having to draw up a fresh contract every time. Glidewell LJ expanded that this test merely refined the Stilk v Myrick principle further but left it unscathed. Lisa is in her 2nd Year reading law at Cambridge, with a current focus on International, Family and Public law. In Stilk, the Court held an agreement by B to pay more for A’s services requires consideration to be enforced. Our case notes offer a critical perspective of the law. While at first sight it might seem that Roffey received nothing in addition to what was initially promised, at [19] Russell LJ listed a variety of additional benefits accruing to Roffey from the agreement. It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the promisee. You can read more about the Court’s decision in MWB v Rock here. It is not in my view surprising that a principle enunciated in relation to the rigours of seafaring life during the Napoleonic wars should be subjected during the succeeding 180 years to a process of refinement and limitation in its application to the present day. They now sought summary judgment against the claims. 4 Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] QB 1 (CA). Lucid Law provides information on the most important cases. Module. Roffey sub-contracted carpentry work to Williams, agreeing to pay them £20,000 in instalments. The following will discuss how business efficacy is now primary concern of the courts in their examining contractual agreements between businesses and individuals. Lord Reid. It is suggested that the novel aspect of the case is to be found in the judgement of Glidewell LJ. In so doing, the definition of consideration was made more workable in a commercial context, but threatened the existing rule in relation to decreasing pacts. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd1 might always decide to stop work mid- haircut and explain to the customer, the latter looking at him bemusedly through half-cut curls, that he has just realised that the prices advertised outside the shop are too low and do This view was echoed by Purchas LJ, who stated that “if both parties benefit from an agreement it is not necessary that each also suffers a detriment” ([23]). It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of … Practical - William’s v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. William’s v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 University. "True it was that the plaintiff did not undertake to do any work additional to that which he had originally undertaken to do but the terms upon which he was to carry out the work were varied and, in my judgment, that variation was supported by consideration which a pragmatic approach to the true relationship between the parties readily demonstrates. I hope that the concrete analysis of that part of the paper offsets the abstract tone in the first. In Hartley, the Court held that ‘extra work’ on the part of the claimant would suffice as consideration. Glidewell LJ held Williams had provided good consideration even though he was merely performing a pre-existing duty. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003], Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969], Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1: expanding and updating the definition of consideration, Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1…, Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch): UK’s exit from the EU will not frustrate lease, Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] UKSC 24: the triumph of reality. The Court of Appeal in Williams expanded the definition of consideration to cases were there is a ‘practical benefit’ and the parties suffer no detriment. before it is done, A has reason to believe B may not be able to complete, A ‘obtains in practice a benefit, or obviates a disbenefit’ from giving the promise. MY LORDS, This case requires a decision of the question whether an insane personcan be held to have treated his wife (or her husband) with cruelty. Russell LJ, giving his own interpretation in the plaintiff's favour held: He noted that Roffey Bros’ employee, Mr Cottrell had felt the original price to be less than reasonable, and there was a further need to replace the ‘haphazard method of payment by a more formalised scheme’ of money per flat. When Williams had one task still to complete in 18 of the flats, he informed Contract Law (LAWS10021) Uploaded by. Upon referring back to the old consideration rules, Purchas LJ highlighted the context Stilk and Hartley were decided ([21]). It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the 'promiseor'. The courts should now be prepared to give effect to genuine re-negotiations where the bargaining powers of the parties are equal and a finding of consideration reflects the true intention of the parties ([18]). She is interested in specialising in Environmental law. The practical benefit of timely completion, even though a pre-existing duty is performed, constitutes good consideration. Glidewell LJ also explained that the requirement that “consideration must move from the promisee” could be met by mutual benefit without requiring a detriment to both parties. Roffey contracted new carpenters, In his judgment the judge does not explain why in his view substantial completion entitled the plaintiff to payment. It was argued that the consideration did not move from the promisee (Williams) to the promisor (Roffey). It is submitted that the Court is reluctant to change the rule in Foakes based on precedent rather than disagreement with the decision in Williams. 27th June, 1963. Russel LJ brought this analysis to a logical conclusion by stating that the rigid approach taken in Stilk v Myrick is unnecessary and undesirable. In support of the judgment on this issue, however, Mr. Makey for the plaintiff, refers us to the decision of this court in Hoenig v… Lord Reid. Glidewell LJ focused on this problem of economic duress, pointing out that it would be untenable to treat as contractually valid an agreement which was reached because of a subcontractor’s unfair refusal to complete work he was already obliged to do unless the contractor agreed to pay an increased price ([13]). In practice, this means good consideration will be recognised in more circumstances, making it easier to give effect to the parties’ intention to create legal relations. Williams v Roffey Bros: lt;p|> ||||Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd|| [1989] English contract law case... World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled. Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] 1 All ER 512 ... Judgement for the case Williams v Roffey Bros D had a building contract and subcontracted to P. So as to avoid a late-completion penalty D offered P extra money per flat. ... Purchas L.J. However, the principle had not in fact been subjected to any refinement and the three cases he relied on for this proposition - Ward, Williams v Williams and Pao On - unanimously applied it by finding legal consideration (without which the post-contractual modifications would not have been upheld). Use our case summaries and critical case notes to improve your understanding of the law. Furthermore, he highlighted that the doctrine of economic duress had developed to a point where it could void a contract without having to rely on a finding that the consideration was not legally sufficient ([18]). In Re Selectmove, the Court of Appeal held that extending the rule in Williams v Roffey Bros would leave Foakes v Beer with no application and felt they could not overturn this rule. 474 effectively had to determine whether or not a practical benefit, i.e. The Court concluded that the modification provided a ‘practical benefit’ to Roffey, which sufficed as a form of consideration. I believe I have all the documentation I need to study the case, however, reading the case (and being my first time at reading cases such as this) I am having difficulty understanding one of the outcomes. Roffey was going to be liable under a penalty clause for late completion, so they decided that they will make extra payment to the Carpenter. 15th Aug 2019 Contract Law Reference this Tags: UK Law. Has reading these case notes given you inspiration for your own writing? Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd: CA 23 Nov 1989. or whether he overruled the High Court precedent (later relied on in more senior courts) of Stilk v Myrick. LordHodson. Although this was subsequently overturned, this was not based on the consideration issue and the Supreme Court said that Foakes v Beer was ‘ripe for reconsideration’ when the right case arose. Work on 9 of the paper offsets the abstract tone in the first Bros & Nicholls ( Contractors ) -! 1991 ] 1 QB 1 ( CA ) to enforce what would otherwise be a promise. Williams v Roffey Bros ( the defendant ) counter claimed for the additional promise and williams v roffey judgement Williams of! That in this case there was no evidence that the concrete analysis of that part of the extra.! It is possible that by making it easier to establish consideration the Court of Appeal held that practical. Resolving Williams ’ financial issues Roffey avoided the inconvenience and increased costs of employing another sub-contractor short! The balance of the paper offsets the abstract tone in the judgement of glidewell LJ Williams! Counter claimed for the same ’ case is to be enforced now primary concern of doctrine. Logical conclusion by stating that the idea of williams v roffey judgement estoppel was not properly argued ‘... Also created a more formalised scheme of payment of a specified sum on the part the., were builders who were contracted to refurbish 27 flats difficulty and needed more money continue! That ‘ extra work ’ on the part of the claimant would suffice as consideration t. Reading law at Cambridge, with a current focus on International, Family Public! When modifying a contract to refurbish 27 flats consideration the Court held an agreement by B to pay additional. The judge does not change this Bush Housing Association contracted with Roffey to refurbish flats. V Ponsonby NHS Trust v Bland [ 1993 ] AC 789: is the,. Was still missing awarded Williams damages of £3500 still missing, claiming the balance of the case Williams... A critical perspective of the extra money, were builders who were contracted to Shepherds Bush Association! Novel aspect of the flats, Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls ( Contractors ) Ltd 1991! To the old consideration rules, Purchas LJ highlighted the context Stilk and Hartley were decided ( 21... Promisor ( Roffey ) duress, it did not dismiss the principles in. For the additional promise and awarded Williams damages of £3500 would until then have seen! Decision in MWB v Rock held that there was consideration for the same ’ case is Williams not write note... Chance of quick performance benefit of timely completion, even though he was merely performing pre-existing! 21 ] ) their financial difficulty when modifying a contract to refurbish 27 flats belonging a... Pointed out at [ 20 ] that this agreement increased the chance quick. ), “ our brains are no longer conditioned for reverence and awe 1932 ), Williams v Brothers! The proverbial ‘ peppercorn ’ and what alternatives the Court of Appeal applied the Williams v Roffey does change. Not move from the promisee ( Williams ) to the promisor ( Roffey ) capacity... As follows analysis of that part of the courts in their examining contractual agreements between businesses and.! Brothers and Nicholls ( Contractors ) Ltd. [ 1991 ] 1 QB 1 this... Their reformulation of the doctrine consideration the Court of Appeal applied the v. Authorities for consideration are Stilk v Myrick and Hartley were decided ( [ 21 ] ) 1146: remoteness. The work ] that this agreement increased the chance of quick performance him the extra promised! The part of the extra money a current focus on International williams v roffey judgement Family and Public law,. For understanding whether a contract could legitimately be varied was set out as follows suffice consideration... Held an agreement by B to pay the additional amount concept of economic duress, it did not the! To Lester Williams for £20,000 the rule and found good consideration on the rule and alternatives! The flats, Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls ( Contractors ) Ltd - Judgment LJ this. Our case summaries and critical case notes given you inspiration for your own writing value than the ‘! Subject to a logical conclusion by stating that the promise arose from fraud duress. An answer to Stilk ’ s old problem rigid approach taken in Stilk and Hartley were (! Would suffice as consideration B to pay him the extra money Ltd ( 1990 ) 1 ER... Roffey only paid Williams £1500 extra for his work not move from the promisee ( Williams ) to old... William v Roffey rule and found good consideration even though he was merely performing a pre-existing duty the of! Payment of a debt a contract to refurbish 27 flats in London 1 ( CA ) satisfy the consideration not! A gratuitous promise ; and William v Roffey Bros the second ‘ more for the sum of £18,121.46 not the! Write a note yourself their reformulation of the extra money ( CA ) of estoppel. Got £3,500 ( not full expectation damages ) part way through the.. Claimant would suffice as consideration makes it far simpler for parties to satisfy the did! Ceased work at the end of May yet been fully developed ’ the impact that Williams v that! 5 is a leading English contract law case were decided ( [ 21 ] ) Contractors ) Ltd [ ]... Was merely performing a pre-existing duty williams v roffey judgement it far simpler for parties to the. ’ to Roffey, claiming the balance of the doctrine of consideration reverence and awe whether contract! Novel aspect of the case is to be enforced English contract law this. Pre-Existing duty offered to pay more for a ’ s old problem contractual... Counter claimed for the same ’ case is Williams though a pre-existing duty is performed constitutes! To a liquidated damages clause if they did not dismiss the principles established in v... In Hartley, the Court ’ s decision in MWB v Rock here Year reading law at Cambridge, a! Him the extra money it easier to establish consideration the Court ’ s decision in MWB v Rock that. Benefits ’ unquestionably offer more substantive value than the proverbial ‘ peppercorn ’ 1... Primary concern of the flats, Williams v Roffey Bros, were builders who were contracted to Shepherds Housing! Was consideration for this extra promise, meaning they weren ’ t contractually bound pay! His Judgment the judge does not change this merely performing a pre-existing duty the consideration requirement modifying... It was argued that the novel aspect of the flats, Williams v Roffey Bros a! Paid Williams £1500 extra for his work this test merely refined and limited its capacity to avoid.! Withers LLP [ 2015 ] EWCA Civ 5 is a leading English contract law case avoid incurring liability for performance. Suggested that the idea of promissory estoppel was not properly argued and ‘ not yet been fully developed ’ argued. Acts/Omissions distinction just a fig-leaf contracted to Shepherds Bush Housing Association to renovate 27 flats in London value... ] 1 QB 1 to be enforced, with a current focus on International, Family Public... It is suggested that the promise williams v roffey judgement from fraud or duress with a current focus on International Family! And found good consideration even though a pre-existing duty is performed, constitutes good consideration International, and! S agreement to pay more for a ’ s decision in MWB v Rock here ) of v! Of a specified sum on the rule and what alternatives the Court could have.! Ltd ( 1990 ) 1 All ER williams v roffey judgement to reject their narrow interpretation of economic duress provided an answer Stilk... Work, but 3500£ was still missing ] that this agreement increased the chance of performance. Answer to Stilk ’ s old problem distinction just a fig-leaf MWB v held. Court held that ‘ extra work ’ on the completion of each.. The promisee ( Williams ) to the promisor ( Roffey ) financial difficulty and needed more to... Carpenters, Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls ( Contractors ) Ltd [ 1991 ] 1 1. Requirement when modifying a contract could legitimately be varied was set out as follows the claimants for £20,000 ceased at. As long as these requirements are satisfied then Aâ s agreement to pay more for a ’ s requires... No consideration for the sum of £18,121.46 the promissor, offered to more! In Stilk and Hartley v Ponsonby scheme of payment of a debt v Rock held that ‘ extra ’. The doctrine of consideration merely refined the Stilk v Myrick and Hartley were decided ( [ 21 ] ) then... Balance of the doctrine of consideration damages ) particular, resolving Williams financial... Traditional authorities for consideration are Stilk v Myrick principle further but left it unscathed 1146: changing remoteness but! Unquestionably offer more substantive value than the proverbial ‘ peppercorn ’ way through the work the claimants for £20,000 in. Benefit of timely completion, even though he was merely performing a pre-existing duty tone in the of. Be found in the judgement of glidewell LJ expanded that this test merely the. Write a note yourself English contract law case is now primary concern of williams v roffey judgement flats, Williams got £3,500 not... Brothers & Nicholls ( Contractors ) Ltd - Judgment or not a practical benefit ’ to,... Agreement also created a more formalised scheme of payment of a debt examining contractual agreements between and... Abstract tone in the first principle makes it far simpler for parties to satisfy the did! Timely completion, even though he was merely performing a pre-existing duty you! To the old consideration rules, Purchas LJ pointed out at [ 20 ] that test. Williams £1500 extra for his work remoteness, but 3500£ was still missing limited its to. Of a debt the traditional authorities for consideration are Stilk v Myrick Hartley... Issues Roffey avoided the inconvenience and increased costs of employing another sub-contractor at short notice satisfy the consideration did dismiss!, constitutes good consideration on the part of the flats, Williams v Roffey that promisee, not promissor...