Williams v roffey bros & nicholls. Williams v Roffey Bros 2022-12-12
Williams v roffey bros & nicholls Rating:
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls  1 QB 1 is a leading English contract law case on the doctrine of consideration. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, and the main issue was whether the additional payment made by Williams to Roffey Bros & Nicholls (the defendants) in order to complete the works under their contract constituted good consideration.
In this case, Williams (the claimant) had entered into a contract with Roffey Bros & Nicholls to carry out renovations on a number of flats. However, during the course of the works, Williams encountered financial difficulties and was unable to pay Roffey Bros & Nicholls the full amount due under the contract. In order to avoid a breach of contract, Williams offered to pay Roffey Bros & Nicholls an additional sum of money in return for their promise to complete the works. Roffey Bros & Nicholls accepted this offer and completed the works.
The Court of Appeal held that the additional payment made by Williams was good consideration. Lord Justice Nolan stated that "consideration must move from the promisee" and that the promisee must provide some form of detriment in return for the promisor's promise. In this case, Williams had provided the detriment of the additional payment, and therefore his promise was supported by good consideration.
The decision in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls has had a significant impact on the law of contract in England and Wales. It has established that in order for a promise to be enforceable, there must be good consideration, which means that the promisee must provide some form of detriment in return for the promisor's promise. This case has also clarified that consideration does not need to be of equal value to the promise, and that it can be either a positive or negative detriment.
Overall, Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls is an important case in the law of contract as it has clarified the doctrine of consideration and its role in the formation of contracts. It has established that for a promise to be enforceable, there must be good consideration, which means that the promisee must provide some form of detriment in return for the promisor's promise.
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd 
When it became apparent Williams could not complete on time, Roffey Brothers promised to pay Williams extra money to ensure it was completed on time. This article will begin by explaining the traditional rule; that, unless additional consideration is furnished, part payment will not relieve the debtor of their obligation to pay the remainder. . Given this absence of consideration, I am not legally bound to my promise. Most obviously, the agreement saved Williams from triggering the penalty clause.
The plaintiff Williams was a carpenter hired by the defendantsRoffey Brothers Contractors to complete work on a block of 27 apartments for a total of£20,000. They subcontracted the carpentry work to William for £20,000. Yet, when Roffey Bros sought the £5,000, Williams refused to pay. A must still pay the extra money to B as there was a practical benefit to A at the time the promise was made. The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. They would be: ensuring that the plaintiffs continued work and did not leave the contract uncompleted avoiding a penalty clause which the defendants would have had to pay under their contract with the owners of the block of flats avoiding the trouble and expense of finding other carpenters to complete the work.
Foakes, overwhelmed by debt and sinking into bankruptcy, was unable to pay her any money at all. . If this benefit actually, in fact, does not occur that is irrelevant to whether the test is passed. Russel LJ also said that where a benefit is adduced, there is no reason why it should not be regarded as consideration. For my part I wish to make it plain that I do riot base my judgment upon any reservation as to the correctness of the law long ago enunciated in Stilk v. .
Two issues were posed before the court. The appellants also gained a practical benefit by avoiding the penalty clause. In normal circumstances the suggestion that a contracting party can rely upon his own breach to establish consideration is distinctly unattractive. Chen-Wishart argues that benefits such as William's continued performance; avoiding the penalty clause and not having to find a replacement confer nothing more than already promised under the original. . As of June 2019, MWB v Rock has been cited fifteen times.
There have been a lot of criticisms to say that Williams v Roffey bros can be a binding precedent. The first practical benefit was a benefit Roffey Bros had under the initial contract anyway. Held Lord Justice Glidewell Roffey Brothers was liable. CONCLUSION Although the ruling in Williams v Roffey Bros was subjected to various criticisms, it is still good law, that only deviated from the traditional rules of consideration to modernise and refine the ruling so that it could be relevant to today's society. Therefore, the two cases can be considered as important precedents when dealing with cases similar to it. The uncertainty Williams v Roffey introduced into this area of law will remain unresolved until an enlarged panel of the Supreme Court takes another case directly on this point. Beer which, together with Stilk v Myrick, formed thetraditional rule that a promise requires independent consideration.
Williams argued that Roffey Bros had provided no consideration to support the promise of extra payment because, by promising to complete the carpentry work, Roffey Bros were doing nothing that they were not already contractually obliged to do. However, it was not. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords. Whilst reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered obiter the developing doctrine of promissory estoppel. At the time of writing, the part payment question has been considered only once.
Ultimately, Lord Blackburn concluded that it could not. Cottrell's part to retain the services of the plaintiff so that the work could be completed without the need to employ another sub-contractor. The English Court of Appeal decision in Williams. The outcome is right since it would make no sense for the courts to curtail the way in which employers can pay and motivate employers. I consider that the modern approach to the question of consideration would be that where there were benefits derived by each party to a contract of variation even though one party did not suffer a detriment this would not be fatal to the establishing of sufficient consideration to support the agreement. One answer is that the courts will try and uphold changes to a contract and do not want to interfere with any variation. Mr Cole owed Mr Pinnel a debt of £8 10s.
However the distinction with Stilk is unconvincing since they are materially the same circumstance. The Court of Appeal was in agreement and the appealwas accordingly dismissed. Furthermore, such a promise would only be valid if the promisor had not used fraud or economic duress in order to force the promisee to make further payment. A might be reluctant to give more. They did not receive any benefit in law. If A is left with absolutely no alternative but to pay extra to B, then there certainly is an arguable case that this is economic duress.