Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey! Sign in to get help with your study questionsNew here? Join for free to post

Consideration,

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone help with a contract law problem question

    I have attempted to answer a previous year exam question relating to consideration and think I may be overlooking a key area The question was along the lines of 'Bob agrees to complete a repair on his friends washing machine as a favour, charging only £20 for parts. This is agreed by his friend. When Bob attempts to fix the machine, there is additional work required and the parts cost him £80. His friend refuses to pay'

    I would have answered that a claim would fail by Bob as he has not given his his friend opportunity to accept the revised figures. There is therefore a lack of consideration moving from the friend. Although I also understand that often, judges will look to enforce contracts that would usually fail for lack of consideration, on a matter of public policy (although I would find it difficult to associate any basis of an argument for this) or indeed, go to exceptional lengths to enforce a contract where there is insufficient consideration (as in Ward v Byham, with regards to existing obligations) I am finding it difficult to reach a conclusion and this worries me greatly! I'm also unsure if I am going off track when considering Taylor v Laird, re communication of offers, given the terms have changes so much and the friend had not been given opportunity to accept or decline.

    Your help would be very, very much appreciated,

    One confused law student =)
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't even say there's a contract on those facts - agreement between friends to do something 'as a favour' sounds like no intention to create legal relations.

    Even if there was a contract for £20, there's nothing much to say about Bob's demand for £80 instead. Bob's friend hasn't agreed to it at all and obviously one party can't unilaterally change the contract without the other's agreement. If Bob's friend had initially agreed to pay the extra but subsequently refused, then there might have been an argument along the lines of Williams v Roffey Bros. But Bob's friend hasn't agreed to pay £80, so it's not a question of consideration, it's just a question of never agreeing in the first place.

    Make sure you've read the question correctly as there is basically nothing to say about it at present!
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    hi I was just wondering if you could break down the Williams vs roffey bros case as I have trouble understanding it and how it applies to contract law..
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by khushiiii)
    hi I was just wondering if you could break down the Williams vs roffey bros case as I have trouble understanding it and how it applies to contract law..
    you don't see its relevance to alteration promises?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    I wouldn't even say there's a contract on those facts - agreement between friends to do something 'as a favour' sounds like no intention to create legal relations.

    Even if there was a contract for £20, there's nothing much to say about Bob's demand for £80 instead. Bob's friend hasn't agreed to it at all and obviously one party can't unilaterally change the contract without the other's agreement. If Bob's friend had initially agreed to pay the extra but subsequently refused, then there might have been an argument along the lines of Williams v Roffey Bros. But Bob's friend hasn't agreed to pay £80, so it's not a question of consideration, it's just a question of never agreeing in the first place.

    Make sure you've read the question correctly as there is basically nothing to say about it at present!
    I was thinking along the same lines about the existence of the contract. I think you can distinguish this from roffey though as bob is completely in the right to ask for the extra money (from a morality stand point)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HarryJames)
    I was thinking along the same lines about the existence of the contract. I think you can distinguish this from roffey though as bob is completely in the right to ask for the extra money (from a morality stand point)
    Bear in mind that the OP, and my response to it, are from April 2012. The post was bumped by someone who, perhaps, doesn't know how to start their own thread for their own question
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    Bear in mind that the OP, and my response to it, are from April 2012. The post was bumped by someone who, perhaps, doesn't know how to start their own thread for their own question
    Sorry I didn't pay attention to the dates, thought it was a new thread


    Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 30, 2013
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.