Biz Law Assignment Essay
Jason Miao and Damien has concluded a contract to construct a swimming pool at the cost of $30,000 payable on completion of the work, which was not in dispute by either parties. After the construction work has commenced, Damien has asked Jason Miao for an extra $5,000 to cover the cost of materials and additional effort. The legal issue is whether Jason Miao is bound by thehis promise to pay Damien the such extra $5,000 to Damien to cover the cost of the materials and the additional effort.
The extra $5,000 constitutes a new of term in the original contract. According to Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd V Edward Leong & Ors (1982) 2 MLJ 22, Damien’s …show more content…
In conclusion, it is high likely that Jason would not be able to go back on his promise of paying the extra $5,000 on two grounds. First, the promise is supported by fresh consideration and the new agreement constitutes a legally binding contract. Second, if it is determined that there is no consideration for the new agreement, Jason Miao would be estopped from going back on his promise according to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. , not be successful in going back on his promise of paying the extra $5000 to Damien following the decision in Williams V Roffey Bros and Nicholls case. Furthermore, Jason cannot deny the promise he made to Damien that both of them relying on it according to the principle of promissory estoppel. In addition, in the case Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd V Edward Leong & Ors (1982) 2 MLJ 22 establish that willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed. With this principle, Damien to do the extra work at $5000 is an offer, Jason’s agreement to pay constitutes an acceptance to the offer. Thus, Jason is bound to pay Damien the extra