The case of Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 is one of legal significance within the area of consideration. For an agreement to be legally enforceable every contract must be supported by valid consideration, which is a device used by the courts to limit the numbers of promises they can be expected to referee over if/when the parties disagree. In this case, the plaintiff, Mr Lester Williams, was a carpenter employed by the defendants, Roffey Bros., a contractor for Shepherds Bush Housing Association. During the project, Williams ran into financial difficulties because the original sum agreed (£20,000 to refurbish 27 London flats) was not enough for the work to be completed. To avoid being penalised under a late penalty clause in the main contract, the defendants agreed to pay a further £575 per flat for on time completion. The defendants failed to make sufficient payment (£1,500 for eight flats) and so Williams ceased work. The county court judge found in favour of the plaintiff and Williams was awarded £3,500, but the defendants appealed on the basis that by completing the agreed work on time, Williams had done no more than he was already contractually bound to do under the existing contract. The …show more content…
1168 – a promise to perform an existing duty will not provide good consideration for a contractual right to payment for the carrying out of that duty) was that the defendants were liable if a promise to make bonus payments was enforceable when the promisor (in this case, Roffey Bros.) obtained a benefit or avoided a detriment (in this case, avoiding the late penalty and the effort and expense of employing another sub-contractor). Where there was no such benefit, the promise would not be valid as consideration. Alongside this, the promise would only be valid where it had not been obtained by fraud or
In the case of Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986), the High Court ruled that: The interpretation of an exclusion clause is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning, read in light of the contract as a whole, thereby giving due weight to the context in which the clause appeared including the nature and object of the contract… This brings to question whether ‘loss or theft’ covers the severe water damage to Kati’s car. In the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971), Denning MR found that if there is an offer communicated through a sign of notice at the entry of a carpark, this offer is accepted by a customer by the ‘movement of his car’ through the entrance . By this
The dispute occurred in Victoria between a registered company, Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd ("the plaintiff") and an incorporated company, Nathan's Merchandise Pty Ltd. ("the defendant), where both parties operated their business. Two previous binding contracts (orders No. 58 and No. M57) were made in communications on 14th May 1951 and 2nd August 1951 respectively, each for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of 1,000,000 Hungarian .22 bullets. A consignment of 1,800,000 bullets for the above orders was dispatched from Sydney to the defendant by rail on the 12th February 1952 and was received by a carrier employed by the defendant in Melbourne who stored the bullets in the defendant's warehouse, where they resided for three days. Claiming that under the contractual terms, those bullets should only be delivered when requested, the defendant refused to take the delivery, and thus reconsigned the bullets back to Sydney by rail. On 3rd March 1952 a letter by the plaintiff's solicitor was sent out requiring the defendant to accept the "contractual goods" and that otherwise necessary steps would be taken to enforce the plaintiff's legal rights. On 6th March the defendant's solicitors responded by reasserting the stance that it had been settled from the start that delivery of bullets should be made only when the defendant required them, to fulfill its customers' orders. In addition the defendant's solicitors raised the further point that the location of delivery in Melbourne was inconsistent with the contractual terms.
The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key stage in how the balance is drawn between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Law of Property Act 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overreaching and the machinery of conveyancing.Ref ?
The case comes from the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. The parties involved were David and Katherine Graves and S.E. Downey Registered Land Surveyor, P.A. S.E. Downey is owned by Stephen Downey, a registered land surveyor and shareholder of the company. His son, Patrick, is an employee who helped on the Graves’ home project, under the supervision of his father.
The Supreme Court of Canada. Judgement by McLachlin J. Also present: Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.
What uncompensated work did the plaintiff claim she performed? What should the district court have done with the statement of another employee that the plaintiff did not engage in work prior to her official start time?
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
Is cruel and unusual and punishment a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the constitution?
Introduction: Both law and ethics help our society to run effectively. Citizens must comply with law. Law can be defined as “must do”. On the other hand, ethics can perhaps be defined as “should do”.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
What occurred in this case was that in a new build factory there had been inoperative flooring set and the claimants in this case lost money due to the flooring having to be reset again. In this case the claimants were in contract with the builders who laid the floor but decided not to sue them but to sue the sub contractors for their negligence because they were present when the builders and claimants were at meetings when discussing the flooring. Similarly, to the case Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] the court allowed the claimants to sue the defendants for their financial
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
In English Law consideration is one of the three main areas of an enforceable contract. It may be defined as an act, forbearance or promise made by a single party that constitutes the price for which the promise of another, is bought. In simple terms, the basic understanding of consideration may be seen as a ‘give and take’ tactic between two parties.