Contract (Stilk/Roffey/Selectmove/Beer) + a general question about Contract exams...

Two questions! Firstly, I've got this for consideration..

Stilk v Myrick (sailors, some deserted, extra money to stay and work harder) - If part way through a contractual duty, compensation is increased, traditionally there is no consideration.
Williams v Roffey – But if there is a factual/practical benefit to the promisor, there is consideration.
Foakes v Beer – Part payment of a debt cannot discharge the full debt without fresh consideration.
Re Selectmove – You cannot apply ‘practical benefits’ to a part payment of a debt.

Is this all correct? I got into a bit of a muddle.

Secondly, and more generally...

I'm finding Law difficult. I'm trying to switch to Psychology next year, but in order to do so, I need to pass my Law exams. That's all I want - to PASS. 40% and I'm over the moon.

With this in mind, my notes all seem to be a set of hundreds of cases with the ratios. I'm just thinking... I suppose these allow me to be good with problem questions, but do you think it's possible to do other questions with this info? I only seem to have this type of notes for Contract. I know to get top marks you need lots of journal article info and academic opinion but there seems to be SO MANY cases I'm very worried about learning those, let alone trying to get my head around/find academic opinions.

But what about to PASS? I'm in such a tizzy.

Two questions! Firstly, I've got this for consideration..

Stilk v Myrick (sailors, some deserted, extra money to stay and work harder) - If part way through a contractual duty, compensation is increased, traditionally there is no consideration.
Williams v Roffey – But if there is a factual/practical benefit to the promisor, there is consideration.
Foakes v Beer – Part payment of a debt cannot discharge the full debt without fresh consideration.

Re Selectmove – You cannot apply ‘practical benefits’ to a part payment of a debt.

Is this all correct? I got into a bit of a muddle.

Secondly, and more generally...

I'm finding Law difficult. I'm trying to switch to Psychology next year, but in order to do so, I need to pass my Law exams. That's all I want - to PASS. 40% and I'm over the moon.

With this in mind, my notes all seem to be a set of hundreds of cases with the ratios. I'm just thinking... I suppose these allow me to be good with problem questions, but do you think it's possible to do other questions with this info? I only seem to have this type of notes for Contract. I know to get top marks you need lots of journal article info and academic opinion but there seems to be SO MANY cases I'm very worried about learning those, let alone trying to get my head around/find academic opinions.

But what about to PASS? I'm in such a tizzy.

I struggled with my Contract module too, but somehow got a 2:i - don't be too downhearted. It's not as hard to do well as it appears!

I'm confused by your definition of Stilk v Myrick. The principle enuciated in this case; was that the existing contractual obligation (for the captain to pay the crew) could not be considered good consideration for the new promise to pay them extra following the desertion of the other sailors.
To put it simply; an existing obligation cannot be used as consideration for another contractual promise.

Otherwise, your summaries seem spot on. I used the Westlaw Nutshells Contract Law guide to understand the key principles behind the crucial cases before reading the full judgements. Some people find flaws with these guides, but I see no problem with them so long as you read cases and other textbooks too. Don't rely on them. They're good for "rough ideas".

You would probably benefit from structuring your notes around the principles, rather than just learning cases by rote

For consideration, you need to be very clear to separate two situations:

1) Increasing pacts / promise to pay more

Stilk v Myrick: You need consideration
Williams v roffey: Practical benefit can be that consideration

2) Decreasing pacts / promise to accept less

Foakes v Beer - needs consideration
Re Selectmove - can't use WvR practical benefits, strict traditional approach still applies

You need to be very very careful to separate the two situations

To be honest if you just want to pass and/or get a 2:1, the best way is to have a decent knowledge of the cases, not really bother with journal articles and focus on problem questions. You don't need opinion or journal references for the sake of it in problems. They are important for essays, but essays tend to be more specialised: most of the articles you read you won't be able to use in the exam

guys im a bit confused too,
Re Selectmove can be used as authority for which one of the following propositions?
A. The proposition of Williams v. Roffey applies to cases of debt.
B. The proposition of Williams v. Roffey is not applicable to agreements to accept reduced payment of a debt.
C. The proposition of Williams v. Roffey only applies where there is a deed of variation.
D. The proposition of Williams v. Roffey is confined to the construction industry because it is founded on customary expectations in that industry.

guys im a bit confused too,
Re Selectmove can be used as authority for which one of the following propositions?
A. The proposition of Williams v. Roffey applies to cases of debt.
B. The proposition of Williams v. Roffey is not applicable to agreements to accept reduced payment of a debt.
C. The proposition of Williams v. Roffey only applies where there is a deed of variation.
D. The proposition of Williams v. Roffey is confined to the construction industry because it is founded on customary expectations in that industry.

This thread is really old, but I will answer anyway. The correct answer is B.

In Re Selectmove counsel tried to extend the test of "practical benefit" in Williams v Roffey to situations concerning an agreement to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction for a whole. The court rejected this stating that such a move would "outflank Foakes v Beer" and would therefore be "inconsistent with the doctrine of precedent."

I suggest you read the Williams v Roffey judgement; it has a nice six or seven point summary of the enunciated principle which, if you know, makes everything a lot clearer.

This thread is really old, but I will answer anyway. The correct answer is B.

In Re Selectmove counsel tried to extend the test of "practical benefit" in Williams v Roffey to situations concerning an agreement to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction for a whole. The court rejected this stating that such a move would "outflank Foakes v Beer" and would therefore be "inconsistent with the doctrine of precedent."

I suggest you read the Williams v Roffey judgement; it has a nice six or seven point summary of the enunciated principle which, if you know, makes everything a lot clearer.

thank you, will read the case