The Student Room Group

Contract law problem question help - Urgent please

..
(edited 11 years ago)
This is a fairly straightforward question which only really raises two issues, the trick is identifying them. You need to carefully distinguish between part payment of a debt (decreasing pact) and promises to pay more for what has already been promised (increasing pact). The analysis is different because you can only use Williams v Roffey for increasing pacts and can only use promissory estoppel for decreasing pacts.

This is a part-payment of debt situation. I would structure as follows:

- Was there a promise? Yes, B promised to accept less money if paid by Wednesday.
- Was there consideration? There was no consideration for B's promise to accept less cash because the money was already due when the promise was made. Although B has arguably gained a Williams v Roffey practical benefit by receiving payment, practical benefits cannot be applied to part-payments of debt due to the House of Lords decision in Foakes v Beer (Re Selectmove).
- Query whether the bottle of wine constitutes consideration. A promise to provide a bottle of wine and make part-payment of the debt could be consideartion (Re Pinnel's Case). However, this is past consideration as the wine was given after the promise. Go through the conditions for past consideartion which were set out in Pao On; these conditions are not met in this case.
- Query whether B could rely on promissory estoppel. Go through the requirements for promissory estoppel and consider whether they are met. I think you could argue it either way, A is now earning money but has also been unemployed for a full year.
Reply 2
..
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 3
..
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 4
..
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 5
What's up khan?
Reply 6
..
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest