Thanks Forum User
I'm a little unsure at the moment as to whether I am understanding the question properly:
Manuel has recently moved into a shared house with several of his friends; the
house is in need of some renovation. Because he is a qualified plumber,
Manuel has completely refurbished the bathroom in his spare time, including
plumbing in a new shower. His housemates had promised to contribute towards
a new shower before work started, but the state of the bathroom was so bad
that Manuel just decided spontaneously to refurbish the whole room. His
housemates were so pleased about the finished bathroom that they
subsequently offered to pay £50 each towards the cost.
Manuel also enters into an agreement with Boris to install his (Boris’s) new
washing machine. He agrees to charge Boris £20, as he believes that it will be
a straightforward job, but the job ends up costing him £80 in parts alone due to
the extra plumbing needed.
Manuel comes to you for advice because his housemates are now refusing to
pay the £50 towards the bathroom, claiming that Manuel had done it ‘to be
friendly’. He also wants to know if he can charge Boris the full cost of his
washing machine installation as he says “it’s not fair: it ended up costing me
money.”
I would have replied with regards to the bathroom that Re Mcardle would have been applicable, on the basis that the rule in Lampleigh v Braithwait could not be used as they only promised to pay on the basis of the shower, therefore the subsequent promise of cash on the basis of the entire bathroom had no consideration.
With regards to Manuel, whilst I am aware the principle regarding everyday social arrangements is against finding for intention to create legal relations, this may be rebutted by the notion of mutuality, as held in Simpkins v Pays? Although even if this were the case, I would then be inclined to advise there was inadequate consideration with regards to the revised finances.
Thank you for your help, I'm studying so much that I think my logic is going a little off track.