The Student Room Group

Mooting Problem

Hi guys, would appreciate if anyone can guide through this mooting problem. I am acting for the appellant
Thank you!

In the House of Lords

Hurley -v- Grant

Henrietta Hurley, a film star, wanted a summer house and a swimming pool constructed in her back garden. She put the job out to tender and accepted the offer of Geraldine Grant, a building contractor, who agreed to do the work for £5,000. Both G and H knew that this was an unrealistically low price. G having completed the summer house and begun construction of the swimming pool ran out of money and materials for the job. G told H that she could not complete the job unless further capital was made available to her. H, who had hoped to win new roles, was desperate to have the pool completed. She tells G "Dahling you have me over a barrel". H agreed to lend G £3,000 in order to buy the materials necessary to ensure that the pool was completed, the money to be repaid when G secured her next contract. The pool was completed; the party was a success and H was awarded the starring role in the new movie "Four Funerals and a Car Drive". H tells G, "Dahling you have saved my career. Don't worry about the £3,000". G starts a new project, whereas H's new film is a complete flop.

H sues G for the £3,000 on either of 2 grounds:
* As an ordinary debt
* The money was extorted by duress

Divine J held:

*The rule in Pinnel's case (1602) was modified by Williams v Roffey Brothers [1990] and therefore the completion of H's pool was capable of constituting and constitutes a benefit in fact which was sufficient consideration for H's payment of the extra £3,000

*Further Hs promise to pay £3,000 was not procured by G's economic duress, because although G exerted illegitimate pressure by threatening to break her contract, H's will was not overborne by Gs behaviour. Pao On v Lau Yiu [1980] applied.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision of Divine J.

H now appeals to the House of Lords on 2 grounds:

* The respondent had exerted illegitimate pressure in procuring the money from the Appellant
* It is not a necessary ingredient in an action for the recovery of money paid under economic duress that the payor's will was overborne.

Quick Reply