1. Compare the decisions in Stilk v Myrick, Williams v Roffey Bros, North Ocean
Shipping v Hyundai and Re Selectmove.
stilk v myrick = sailor was promised extra wages for remaining on boat, not
given this as he was merely doing his job>going beyond – case establishes
general rule
Williams v Roffey bros = r offered to give w extra money to ensure task was
completed on time, no economic duress
north ocean shipping v Hyundai = economic duress present – didn’t have
effect because too much time had passed [lapse of time]
letter of credit = services purpose that n will get money back in case h fails
to delivery tanker
was good consideration
re selectmove = s owed tax man money, agreed to pay tax as it fell due and
monthly £1k, court of appeal said not good consideration – owed taxes
anyways
all cases about existing duty to promisor
glidewell test – if all questions answer yes = then will be good consideration, if
no = no consideration
test used to determine whether performance of contract is good consideration
g = goods/service contract
r = reason to doubt performance
a = additional payment offered>pressured
b = benefit in practical, practical benefit
n = no duress
c = promise is capable to be consideration – something of economic value in
eyes of law
Mwb v rock = held there was good consideration, challenges foakes v beer,
practical benefit was retaining tenant [kept money going] – claiming even part
payments can be good consideration [somewhat like williams v Roffey], may
be a practical benefit in accepting less
2. “It is impossible to reconcile the decision in Williams v Roffey Bros with the
decision in Foakes v Beer claims cannot accept less, if you do so then able to
go to court and accept more . Later courts have now recognised this
difficulty and the authority of Williams v Roffey Bros is a doubtful one.”
Discuss.
distinguishes between contract for services and debt obligation
to explain Williams v Roffey [good consideration = was practical
W and R]
F v B = owe debt – no good benefit, want to ensure people pay
whole debt
Shipping v Hyundai and Re Selectmove.
stilk v myrick = sailor was promised extra wages for remaining on boat, not
given this as he was merely doing his job>going beyond – case establishes
general rule
Williams v Roffey bros = r offered to give w extra money to ensure task was
completed on time, no economic duress
north ocean shipping v Hyundai = economic duress present – didn’t have
effect because too much time had passed [lapse of time]
letter of credit = services purpose that n will get money back in case h fails
to delivery tanker
was good consideration
re selectmove = s owed tax man money, agreed to pay tax as it fell due and
monthly £1k, court of appeal said not good consideration – owed taxes
anyways
all cases about existing duty to promisor
glidewell test – if all questions answer yes = then will be good consideration, if
no = no consideration
test used to determine whether performance of contract is good consideration
g = goods/service contract
r = reason to doubt performance
a = additional payment offered>pressured
b = benefit in practical, practical benefit
n = no duress
c = promise is capable to be consideration – something of economic value in
eyes of law
Mwb v rock = held there was good consideration, challenges foakes v beer,
practical benefit was retaining tenant [kept money going] – claiming even part
payments can be good consideration [somewhat like williams v Roffey], may
be a practical benefit in accepting less
2. “It is impossible to reconcile the decision in Williams v Roffey Bros with the
decision in Foakes v Beer claims cannot accept less, if you do so then able to
go to court and accept more . Later courts have now recognised this
difficulty and the authority of Williams v Roffey Bros is a doubtful one.”
Discuss.
distinguishes between contract for services and debt obligation
to explain Williams v Roffey [good consideration = was practical
W and R]
F v B = owe debt – no good benefit, want to ensure people pay
whole debt
