Revisiting Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
Introduction
The case Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd (Williams v Roffey) has a significant influence on the development of the law of contract regarding the consideration of existing duty. This case is a decision of the Court of Appeal. There are three judges namely Glidewell, Rusell, and Purchas LJJ. Mr. Williams is the appellant while the Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd is the respondent. The case was judged on 23 November 1989. In the following paragraphs, I would mention some material facts and procedural history of this case, then move on to the court’s findings. I would try to assess the court’s findings by comparing it with Stilk v Myrick, a case that the court has distinguished. I would also mention the impact of the case on the society.
Material Fact As outlined in the headnote of the case report, the defendant was originally under a main building contract. They then contracted with the plaintiff under a subcontract …show more content…
The defendant made the promise because both parties were in a view that the “subcontract price agreed was too low to enable the plaintiff to operate satisfactorily and at a profit,” this agreement is in the interests of both parties. The defendant had a practical benefit because he could avoid the “penalty for the delay” and also the “trouble and expense of engaging other people to complete the carpentry work.” The court deliberately made an effort in distinguishing this case from Stilk v Myrick to avoid inconsistency. In Stilk v Myrick, there was no consideration for the ulterior pay promised because the sailors had to perform their job “under all the emergencies of the voyage.” This case was also judged based on a strong public policy ground to “protect the master and owners of a ship from being held to ransom by disaffected
Introduction
The case Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd (Williams v Roffey) has a significant influence on the development of the law of contract regarding the consideration of existing duty. This case is a decision of the Court of Appeal. There are three judges namely Glidewell, Rusell, and Purchas LJJ. Mr. Williams is the appellant while the Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd is the respondent. The case was judged on 23 November 1989. In the following paragraphs, I would mention some material facts and procedural history of this case, then move on to the court’s findings. I would try to assess the court’s findings by comparing it with Stilk v Myrick, a case that the court has distinguished. I would also mention the impact of the case on the society.
Material Fact As outlined in the headnote of the case report, the defendant was originally under a main building contract. They then contracted with the plaintiff under a subcontract …show more content…
The defendant made the promise because both parties were in a view that the “subcontract price agreed was too low to enable the plaintiff to operate satisfactorily and at a profit,” this agreement is in the interests of both parties. The defendant had a practical benefit because he could avoid the “penalty for the delay” and also the “trouble and expense of engaging other people to complete the carpentry work.” The court deliberately made an effort in distinguishing this case from Stilk v Myrick to avoid inconsistency. In Stilk v Myrick, there was no consideration for the ulterior pay promised because the sailors had to perform their job “under all the emergencies of the voyage.” This case was also judged based on a strong public policy ground to “protect the master and owners of a ship from being held to ransom by disaffected