Consideration, double liability

Hello everybody. I have a coursework to submit in January and really stuck on the double liability issue. Case example: Julia's dog goes missing on Monday. She telephones John, the owner of "Wefindanydog Ltd". John says, "Iwill find your dog for £150." Julia agrees. Whilst Julian and her brother, Nick, are looking for their dog, they bump into John. Nick, who is keen to help, says to John, "I'll give you £200 of my own if you find the dog". After 10 minutes of looking, John find the dog and returns him to Julia. Both Julia and Nick refuse to pay John, telling him that he cannot possible expect to be paid for so little effort.

I think the authority to support the case would be Williams and Roffey - performance of an existing contractual obligation. Lord Glidwell's criteria are met in this case. But I am not sure if I am right.

Any points to incorporate are welcome.
Any advice or help would be much appreciated.

Hello everybody. I have a coursework to submit in January and really stuck on the double liability issue. Case example: Julia's dog goes missing on Monday. She telephones John, the owner of "Wefindanydog Ltd". John says, "Iwill find your dog for £150." Julia agrees. Whilst Julian and her brother, Nick, are looking for their dog, they bump into John. Nick, who is keen to help, says to John, "I'll give you £200 of my own if you find the dog". After 10 minutes of looking, John find the dog and returns him to Julia. Both Julia and Nick refuse to pay John, telling him that he cannot possible expect to be paid for so little effort.

I think the authority to support the case would be Williams and Roffey - performance of an existing contractual obligation. Lord Glidwell's criteria are met in this case. But I am not sure if I am right.

Any points to incorporate are welcome.
Any advice or help would be much appreciated.

The poster above is right that this is about undertaking an obligation to a third party for the same responsibility--which is good consideration. Williams v Roffey isn't in point here. (Williams deals with increased payment for services, practical benefit, and raises the question of whether economic duress was present.) I'm pretty sure Pao is not a 3p case, and deals with a second promise to the promisor/past consideration. Take a look at Shadwell v Shadwell.

You might want to consider whether Nick has a defence that the statement was a mere puff/not intended to create legal relations--though to me this seems a fairly thin argument.

Pau on is to do with third party consideration. The same consideration of selling shares was made with a company as well as the directors
I cant remember the entire facts but a company was buying/sellong shares for a building that was being built and the party ending up with the shares had terms in this contract meaning that the party who originally owned the shares would garuntee their value
The party with the shares realised that this meant they wouldnt actually have any security over if the price rose as the buy back was to garuntee the value and so being paid in shares was redundant so they made the directors of the company who made the promise to garuntee to make a further promise.
The consideration in this case from one party was the same to both parties but the court held that this was good. Whilst the directors were the company owners they counted as a third part and so provided consideration based on the same consideration. In effect they werent gaining anything and I was never quite sure why this was a good contract. It seemed a little strange to me. This is how it was explained to

Sorry it is slightly vague. I think it also states the exceptions to past cosideration ( I may be worng about this part)

Thank you so much guys for your answers. But I'm still confused. To start off it is not clear for me if Julia's offer is a unilateral offer or is a bilietar contract between them as it looks like an executory consideration. As finding the dog will happen in future.

In total there are two contracts: 1st between Julia and John and 2nd between Julia and Nick.

Any advice would be very helpful. Thanks

You're right on the 3p consideration point--though they cite the Eurymedon and Scotson v Pegg to support, and these cases might be more directly in point. The promise was to indemnify the defendants against a drop in price--the plaintiffs incurred a second obligation to a separate party.

Unless I'm missing something, the John/Nick situation is NOT a unilateral Carlill situation. There are obligations going both ways: John to find the dog and Nick to pay the money. A Carlill-style contract is unilateral because the obligation only goes one way (the person using the smoke-ball did not have an obligation to do anything, only Carlill had an obligation to pay-out if someone accepted the offer).

Think about how the obligation is construed in this second contract. Is the obligation to find the dog in favour of Julia (in which case Nick is contracting for the benefit of a third party and the obligation to find the job doesn't actually change making this a Williams v Roffey situation) or is it in favour of Nick?

It is also at least conceivable that the £200 is supposed to be backing-up the £150 rather than an additional obligation - i.e. a guarantee (with an extra £50 bolted on, admittedly) - which would mean that the maximum John could claim is £200 and not £350.

These aren't massive issues but do think very very carefully about how particular words and courses of events might be construed - don't jump to conclusions if you can possibly help it.

Unless I'm missing something, the John/Nick situation is NOT a unilateral Carlill situation. There are obligations going both ways: John to find the dog and Nick to pay the money. A Carlill-style contract is unilateral because the obligation only goes one way (the person using the smoke-ball did not have an obligation to do anything, only Carlill had an obligation to pay-out if someone accepted the offer).

Think about how the obligation is construed in this second contract. Is the obligation to find the dog in favour of Julia (in which case Nick is contracting for the benefit of a third party and the obligation to find the job doesn't actually change making this a Williams v Roffey situation) or is it in favour of Nick?

It is also at least conceivable that the £200 is supposed to be backing-up the £150 rather than an additional obligation - i.e. a guarantee (with an extra £50 bolted on, admittedly) - which would mean that the maximum John could claim is £200 and not £350.

These aren't massive issues but do think very very carefully about how particular words and courses of events might be construed - don't jump to conclusions if you can possibly help it.

Interesting point--I'm inclined to think "I will give you 200 if you find the dog" is capable of either interpretation. Whether it's bilateral or unilateral, John has found the dog--I think the question would be more important if John did not find the dog, in which case the question of whether he'd breached his contract with Nick would arise.

Your point about the guarantee is one I hadn't though of, though.

Thanks for your answer. It's really appreciated.

Can I sugest that there is a contract between Julia and John and she is liable to John. What about John and Nick, it could be argued that there is no intention to create legal relation. But to support the case I should bring Williams and Roffey. Also should I mention that finding the missing dogs it his business. Which authorities would you suggest to support the case.

Thanks a lot in advance

Interesting point--I'm inclined to think "I will give you 200 if you find the dog" is capable of either interpretation. Whether it's bilateral or unilateral, John has found the dog--I think the question would be more important if John did not find the dog, in which case the question of whether he'd breached his contract with Nick would arise.

Your point about the guarantee is one I hadn't though of, though.

Can I sugest that there is a contract between Julia and John and she is liable to John. What about John and Nick, it could be argued that there is no intention to create legal relation. But to support the case I should bring Williams and Roffey. Also should I mention that finding the missing dogs it his business. Which authorities would you suggest to support the case.

You are totally right, I was tired and didn't think it through (hence the "unless I'm missing something comment - I was!). A "I will give you 200 if you find the dog" is capable of being a unilateral contract although the offer is to a specific person rather than the world at large as in Carlill.

Hello! Hope you had a nice Xmas day and feel good. Bothering again with a question When payments are refused by parties saying that for a very little effort they are not going to pay the answer would be that they are in breach of contract. Is that right?

I think the issue of promissory estoppel is not a case here as there is a consideration in the contract, but I think I might need to mention why it is not an issue here.

I can say that there is a bilateral contract between the parties as the consideration is provided be exchanges of promises. Therefore the owner of the company will be able to enforce the promise. Also there is an intention to create legal relation as that dog later is sold for £1500. Moreover, it's a business for John therefore he is expecting them to paid for the provided service. My point of veiw is there are two separate contracts even though it's his existing duty to a third party.

I have a question to what I would like to have an answer if possible. If the "Wewillfingthedog" fails to find the dog would the promisors be able to sue him? If they can a double liability issue will arise here. (?) If they would not be able to sue him would he have double liability towards them? Thanks a lot in advance!

Your help is very much appreciated!

They bump into each other in the street and I have only one sentence saying: "I will pay you £10 of my own money if you find the dog". That's why I was suggesting that the consideration goes only one way, and it's a reward for finding the dog. It's not clear from the situation if the dog finder provides the consideration or not