CHAR_A01.PDF, page 1-18 @ Normalize ( CHAR_A01.QXD )

SOURCE 7

The Board agrees with the submission of counsel for the plaintiffs that the
consideration expressly stated in the written guarantee is sufficient in law to
support Lau’s promise of indemnity. An act done before the giving of a
promise to make a payment or to confer some other benefit can sometimes
be consideration for the promise. The act must have been done at the
promisor’s request, the parties must have understood that the act was to be
remunerated either by a payment or the conferment of some other benefit,
and payment, or the conferment of a benefit, must have been legally
enforceable had it been promised in advance. All three features are present in

Sources of contract law 275

Owners Builders Carpenters

£ to be paid Work done on time £ to be paid Complete work on time

or pay compensation

Builders would have to Held: the further agreement (to pay more money for the

compensate owners if carpenters to continue) was valid because it saved the

work was completed late builders looking for other carpenters and avoided the

compensation payment.The main consideration from the

carpenters was exactly the same, i.e. to complete the work

on time.

Note:Williams v Roffeyis based on the principles in Stilk v Myrick (performance

of an existing duty is not good consideration),Hartley v Ponsonby(performing

more that the existing duty may be valid) and Ward v Byham (very little ‘extra’

may suffice).You should revise these rules and the facts of the cases, and reflect

on how they have developed through precedent.

Remember that:

• The important case of Williams v Roffeyis an existing contractualduty, as
  opposed to a duty owed under the law of the land. (Revise the facts of
  Roffey– what exactlywas seen as a practical benefit or the avoidance of a
  disadvantage?)


• Williams v Roffeyis an excellent example of the difficulties of the courts
  having to decide whether to follow the strict rules of precedent in order
  to maintain certainty, or to attempt to tailor the ‘rules’ to take into
  account commercial reality – a flexible approach.


• There was found to be no economic duress in Roffey(we take this as a
  finding of fact when the judges listened to the evidence). It would be good
  to compare this with the more recent case of Carillion Construction v Felix
  (see Chapter 10: Duress).