The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

contract law - consideration, please help!

Please help I am struggling with this! I was given this problem question on consideration:
Jill organises a concert at the City Hall, engaging Kathleen as a pianist. Paul, who operates a musical instrument hire service, agrees to hire to Jill a Steinway grand piano for £300 to be delivered at 3pm on the day of the concert. At 1pm on that day, Paul rings Jill to say he can't deliver on time, as 5 of his 8 employees have resigned without notice, and it would be dangerous for 3 men to try and move the piano.
Jill then offers Paul an extra £100 if he can make the delivery by 3pm.
Kathleen hears about the problem and knowing that a record company representative will be at the concert, and anxious to play, she rings Paul and offers him £50 if he can deliver the piano on time.
1) Can Paul recover the extra £100 promised by Jill?
2) Can he recover the £50 promised by Kathleen?

I am one of two defence advocates arguing he can't recover the money from Jill or Kathleen. We need a fourth point and fourth case to match, we have:
existing contractual duty, promissory estoppel (Paul can't go back on his promise), and privity of contract (Kathleen is not the promisor or promisee just 3rd party).

Please help!! There must be another point for bad consideration...
Thankyou!
The law of consideration states the where a party obtains a practical benefit as a result of making that additional promise sufficient consideration is provided.In this case Jill obtains a benefit if Paul delivers the piano at 3pm as promised.This is because Jill has already advertised for the concert and its obvious that people will turn up for the concert,it would therefore be inconviniencing to Jill if the piano will not be present by 3pm.In reference to the case of Williams v Roffey brothers and Nicholl where Roffey brothers had contracted to refurbish a block of 27 flats.They sub contracted the carpentry work to Williams.He was to be paid 20000 pounds.Williams completed 9 flats then ran short of cash.Under the main contract Roffey brothers had,there was a penalty clause if work was not completed in time.Roffey brothers offered an additional amount to Williams for him to complete the work in time.Roffey brothers never paid the additional amount in full and Williams sued.The court held that Williams could recover.The court stated that if a person obtained a practical benefit as a result of making a promise,good consideration is furnished.Paul is therefore in a position to recover the additional amount promised by Jill.
I'm not sure how you could make the case that he cannot recover from Kathleen for bad consideration. Kathleen obtains the benefit of playing for the record company representative, and Paul gets the benefit of the £50, or the promise thereof.

Whether he can recover the £100 from Jill is slightly trickier since all he has to do for it is to honour his pre-existing contractual obligation, as you mention, but the grounds for refusing to pay more for an existing contractual duty is lack of good consideration from the promisee. Williams v Roffey is probably what your opponents will rely on, but you could argue on the basis of Stilk v Myrick. There, two seamen deserted the rest of the crew of a ship midway through its voyage (compare to piano movers quitting). Then, the captain promised the rest of the men extra payment if they completed the journey short-handed (compare to Jill offering the extra £100 to Paul for delivery), which they did successfully. When he refused to pay them extra, they sued him. They lost on the basis that they had provided no good consideration for the captain's promise - it was a gratuitous promise.

I would be interested to hear what point you have for 'existing contractual duty' that is distinct from this...

P.S. Consideration is a doctrine, not a law.
I should provide the disclaimer that I have been studying law for roughly six weeks, so there may well be problems with what I have said, though I can't spot any. It's a starting point anyway.
Original post by TurboCretin
you could argue on the basis of Stilk v Myrick. There, two seamen deserted the rest of the crew of a ship midway through its voyage (compare to piano movers quitting). Then, the captain promised the rest of the men extra payment if they completed the journey short-handed (compare to Jill offering the extra £100 to Paul for delivery), which they did successfully. When he refused to pay them extra, they sued him. They lost on the basis that they had provided no good consideration for the captain's promise - it was a gratuitous promise.


But on the flip side of this, there is Hartley vs Ponsonby where the shortage of labour was so great as to make the continuation of the journey dangerous, the other facts being broadly the same, where the seaman won the case. Stilk vs Myrick may have been decided on the basis that the seamen were essentially blackmailing the captain, as in the earlier case of Harris vs Watson. In any case the facts seem closer to Williams vs Roffey Brothers where there was no economic duress or blackmail.

OP - privity of contract doesn't enter into it, Kathleen's deal with Paul constitutes a new contract between the pair of them. The contract has consideration since Kathleen derives a benefit (and it is not even true to say that Paul suffers no detriment since he may have chosen to pay damages for breach of contract to Jill, and by accepting Kathleen's offer he has opened himself up to two actions for breach of contract).

I don't understand where Promissory Estoppel comes into this either, OP. Promissory Estoppel occurs where a party to a contract states that he will no longer rely on his strict legal rights and then, if the other party relies on that 'waiver' to act differently than he would otherwise have done, the first party may not 'go back on his word', at least without reasonable notice. (High Trees, Metropolitan railway vs Hughes, etc).

That doesn't help you defend this action but it does rather seem like the facts are against you. Disclaimer - I'm only a first year student as well :smile:
(edited 12 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you