Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

contact law question help

Consider the following problems:
(a) Roger gets into difficulties while swimming in the sea at Blackpool. He sees Terry on the beach and shouts “Help! I’m drowning! Save me at any price!” Terry plunges into the sea and rescues Roger who, in gratitude, promises to pay him £500, but then fails to pay him.
Advise Terry.

(b) Ken, who is about to go on holiday, is worried about burglars. He promises Fred, his local community policeman, £200 if he will keep an eye on his house while he is away. Fred duly does so, and Ken’s house is not burgled, but on his return Ken refuses to pay Fred.
Advise Fred.

(c) Uncle John promises his nephew Ted that if he and his girlfriend will paint his house while he is away on his summer holiday he will pay them £2,000. Ted and his girlfriend Mary paint the house, but when Uncle John returns from holiday and hears that Ted has fallen out with Mary he pays Ted only £1,000 and refuses to pay anything to Mary.
Advise Ted and Mary.

d) Michael enters into a contract with Nigel, a plumber, to have his bathroom refitted. The contract stipulates that Nigel is to receive an “all-inclusive” price of £7,000 for the work. When the work is half finished, Nigel informs Michael that he will be unable to complete the work for £7,000 because the price of materials has risen and he will need an additional £2,000 in order to finish the job. Michael, who is expecting important guests, agrees to pay the additional £2,000 but, when Nigel has completed the work, he pays £7,000 and refuses to pay any more.
Advise Nigel.

Reply 1

hotliketea

Original post by cybersheep

(a)
It is debatable if there is a unilateral contract by R to T because 'at any price' can mean anything from 'go to great lengths' to 'i will pay you if you save me'. Moreover, the terms were not clear.

Therefore, the promise by R to pay T £500 is gratuitous, given that the consideration offered by T has already passed, and cannot generally be enforced (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge). The only way this could be enforced is through the exceptions to past consideration highlighted in Williams v Roffey Bros and Pao On. The former does not apply as T was under no duty to R prior to R yelling. Therefore, you turn to the requirements set down by Lord Scarman in Pao On. This requires the act to have been requested by R (Save me), understood to be remunerated (debatable, but possible as he says 'at any cost') and would have been legally enforceable if promised in advance (no).
This means T has no claim against R - the terms were not sufficiently clear, the actions by T were not clearly understood to be remunerated and the promise to save him 'at any cost' would not have been legally enforceable in advance.

If R is successful in proving the act was not to be remunerated, T may try to enforce the promise through promissory estoppel, but this again is unlikely as the promise would have had to have been clear (Collin v Duke of Westminster) and it would have to be inequitable for R to refuse to pay (D&C Builders v Rees).

(b)
Consider the dicta of the judgments in Glasbrook Brother Ltd v Glamorgan CC against the dicta of Denning in Ward v Byham - it seems to be accepted that if a person under a public duty goes further than their duty requires, they will be able to enforce the promise. On the facts, it is arguable if F goes further than his public duty; it is his duty to ensure that no houses are burgled, so more would need to be known about what exactly he did to ensure the security of K's house. If it falls within his duties as a policeman, he cannot claim the money, and it is wise not to rely on Denning's statement in Ward v Byham that it is a 'benefit to the person to whom it is conferred'; this is a statement that has been subject to much criticism, and arguably obiter as in the case it was found the mother went further than her public duty in keeping the child 'happy'.

i have to go to work now but hopefully that all helps you a bit!