williams v roffey bros and nicholls - how the laws changed ?Watch
i have a question asking to analyse how the Court of Appeal's decision in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd changed the law
is this just the idea that RB obtained a pratical benefit because they avoided the penalty clause from their own contract with the housin association and the rule that where a party to an existing contract later agrees to pay an 'extra bonus' in order that one party performs his obligations under the original contract, then the new agreement is binding if the party agreeing to pay the bonus thereby gained some new practical benefit or avoided a disadvantage? so consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient in this case?
or am i going off track here? is that not how the laws change?
In Williams v. Roffey, the court found valid consideration in the practical benefit that Roffey obtained by his agreement with Williams. So far the practical/factual benefit (Denning) has been refused as good consideration. The argument has always been that consideration must be something of value in the eyes of law – something that provides or brings about a legal benefit.
What was this practical benefit? It consisted of a number of factors. The court held that it was the fact that Williams continued his work and did not breach the sub-contract. Therefore, Roffey avoided the trouble of looking for somebody else to complete the work. Furthermore, Roffey avoided the penalty payment for the delay under the main contract. Also, by directing the claimant to complete one flat at a time, the defendant was able to organize their work with other subcontractors in a more efficient manner. It is clear that the logic of “factual benefit” earlier argued by Lord Denning was applied here. Even though there was no legal benefit to Roffey, the contractual modification, in fact, benefited Roffey.
It is questionable whether this reasoning about “practical benefits” is persuasive enough to disregard the need for a legal benefit and change this rule in such a dramatic way. When looking at each of the “practical benefits”, one realizes that they do not consist of anything additional. Roffey would have received all of these benefits under the original contract, even if it were not modified. In fact, all of these new “advantages” were the very reason why they concluded the original contract. Williams was hired as the subcontractor to do the work. Therefore, the main purpose here was not to look for anyone else to do the job. Similarly, the fact that Roffey did not have to pay the penalty because the plaintiff continued the work was the very reason that a subcontractor would have been hired initially. The question is: how can this count as a fresh consideration? Was this not yet another “invented consideration” by the courts?
Its from this http://review.society.cz/index.php?I...tent&task=view
The problem is that the concept is very uncertain and potentially ludicrously wide: one of the PBs mentioned, 'not having to sue to enforce your rights' applies to every conceivable case, and if this were sufficient on its own, there would be no point in having a consideration requirement at all since it would always be met. This plainly cannot be the case, so exactly what counts as a 'practical benefit' is very unclear.
How Does It Differ Between Williams V Roffey And Stilk And Myrick My Head Is Spinning
Roffey doesn't change the rule. What Roffey does is creates a concept of "practical benefit" and says that this counts as consideration. Roffey says that if you can find a "practical benefit", this is consideration. Roffey doesn't actually change the basic rule - it widens what counts to satisfy that rule. After Roffey, a court is more likely to find that there is consideration on the facts in a contract variation case than it would have been before.
Hi, how do I connect the lines between Re Selectmove case, William and Roffey Brros case and also South caribbean trading ltd (‘sct’) v trafigura beheer case?Does Re Selectmove and South caribbean trading ltd (‘sct’) v trafigura beheer made Roffey a good case?
If you are have access to Westlaw, a case is "good law" if it has a green indicator. It's effect is greater if it is cited or applied in another case with positive judicial treatment.