Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter

    Hi, i have a moot on consideration and I am the respondent.. I just want to find the general principles surrounding this area of contract law so that I can apply them myself to the case.
    The following is my moot and submission is included too:

    In the Supreme Court
    Fly-away Ltd v Air Coach Ltd
    Fly-away Ltd are a low budget airline and operate short domestic flights between Nottingham and London. Their business proves successful and they decide to expand their business by introducing a number of short-haul flights to Cyprus.

    They approach Air Coach Ltd, a large manufacturer of jet engine planes and negotiate for the purchase of an aircraft. The contract price is £6,000,000 and both parties agree a payment schedule. Fly-away Ltd agrees to pay £4,000,000 upon delivery of the aircraft on 1st January 2013 and a final payment of £2,000,000 on 1st March 2013.

    Air Coach delivers the aircraft to Fly-away Ltd on 1st January 2013 as per the contract. Shortly after taking delivery of the aircraft Fly-away Ltd loses a profitable contract with its largest booking agent resulting in a significant drop in demand for their Nottingham to Cyprus route. Air Coach Ltd is also experiencing financial difficulties due to a number of legal actions being brought against it following the discovery of a defect in one of its executive aircraft.

    Realising that Fly-away Ltd would be unable to pay the remaining £2,000,000 on 1st March 2013, Air Coach Ltd agrees to accept £500,000 in full satisfaction of the debt. Fly-away Ltd duly pays the £500,000 on 1st March 2013. Air Coach Ltd is subsequently found liable for breaching health and safety regulations by the Health and Safety Executive and is ordered to pay substantial damages to customers of its executive aircraft. Air Coach Ltd is unable to meet the order for damages and so brings an action on 15th April 2013 against Fly-away Ltd to recover the outstanding £1,500,000 owed.

    Air Coach Ltd argues it is not bound by their promise to accept the lesser amount
    as Fly-away Ltd had provided no consideration in return. Contract Moot Question

    In the High Court, Gaffe J held that Fly-away Ltd was not liable for the outstanding payment following the principles of consideration established in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1.

    Air Coach Ltd appeals to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that Gaffe J had erred in applying Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB1 to the part-payment of a debt situation, this being inconsistent with the principle established in Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605.

    The appeal is upheld and Fly-away Ltd now appeals to the Supreme Court, with
    leave, on the single ground:
    1) That Gaffe J had not erred in applying the principle in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1. The benefits obtained by the part-payment of a debt should be treated the same as those benefits obtained under a contract for the provision of goods and/or services.


    In am doing the same moot but I am the appellant! Have you established the general cases
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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