Contract LAW1221 - Lecture 7 15/10/26
Existing contractual obligations to promisor: valid considerations
Where there is an existing contract and the claimant is doing something under the contract they are
already obligated to do, there are variations that are unproblematic.
Unproblematic variations, where there is good consideration:
• If you vary it so both parties are going to both do more. Do additional obligations, if there is extra
work, the client pays more and other does more.
• Obligations are swapped for different ones. If parties have agreed for one thing, a product, work
etc, and they agree for the variation together for a change in obligation, for example if one wants
a different product and the other party can give and wants to then that is good consideration.
What did the purchaser do to provide consideration though, they gave up the right for the initial
obligation before the variation.
Problematic variations, where consideration in doubt:
• More money for the same work. If one party has not done more obligations but gets more for it,
there may be issues with consideration.
• Part payment of a debt to release/delay remained. If a party accepts part of the money and
release the other of the debt contract, the problem there is, they have released the debt, but the
other party hasn’t given consideration as they paying what is already due.
More money for the same work
The general rule is that a promise to pay more for the same work is not good consideration, coming
from Stilk v Myrick (1809).
• In Stilk, two sailors deserted mid-way through a round voyage from London to Russian port.
• The captain promised to divide their wages among the rest of the crew.
• The sailors didn’t get the extra money and took it to court. But as they did what they were
contracted to do, for more money, there was not good consideration so it was unenforceable.
The Williams v Roffery Bros exception
A construction firm D, contracted with C for C to do carpentry work on the refurbishment of 27 flats.
C got into financial trouble, D realised it and told C they would pay an extra £575 for each flat
completed by C.
C completed a further 8, but D refused to pay the extra sums promised.
Held (CA): even though C did no more than originally contract to do, there was consideration for D’s
promise as D secured “practical benefits” for itself by making it. The defendant benefited by the
agreement for extra money so they had got consideration too.
What were the benefits? D avoided penalties in main contract with main customer, C continued to
work, and also D was saved of not finding another carpenter.
Problem here is that there was similar practical benefits in Stilk and Myrick case as the sailor was
worried the other sailors would not finish the work but they did so the sailor could be argued as being
practically benefitted with consideration.
1
Existing contractual obligations to promisor: valid considerations
Where there is an existing contract and the claimant is doing something under the contract they are
already obligated to do, there are variations that are unproblematic.
Unproblematic variations, where there is good consideration:
• If you vary it so both parties are going to both do more. Do additional obligations, if there is extra
work, the client pays more and other does more.
• Obligations are swapped for different ones. If parties have agreed for one thing, a product, work
etc, and they agree for the variation together for a change in obligation, for example if one wants
a different product and the other party can give and wants to then that is good consideration.
What did the purchaser do to provide consideration though, they gave up the right for the initial
obligation before the variation.
Problematic variations, where consideration in doubt:
• More money for the same work. If one party has not done more obligations but gets more for it,
there may be issues with consideration.
• Part payment of a debt to release/delay remained. If a party accepts part of the money and
release the other of the debt contract, the problem there is, they have released the debt, but the
other party hasn’t given consideration as they paying what is already due.
More money for the same work
The general rule is that a promise to pay more for the same work is not good consideration, coming
from Stilk v Myrick (1809).
• In Stilk, two sailors deserted mid-way through a round voyage from London to Russian port.
• The captain promised to divide their wages among the rest of the crew.
• The sailors didn’t get the extra money and took it to court. But as they did what they were
contracted to do, for more money, there was not good consideration so it was unenforceable.
The Williams v Roffery Bros exception
A construction firm D, contracted with C for C to do carpentry work on the refurbishment of 27 flats.
C got into financial trouble, D realised it and told C they would pay an extra £575 for each flat
completed by C.
C completed a further 8, but D refused to pay the extra sums promised.
Held (CA): even though C did no more than originally contract to do, there was consideration for D’s
promise as D secured “practical benefits” for itself by making it. The defendant benefited by the
agreement for extra money so they had got consideration too.
What were the benefits? D avoided penalties in main contract with main customer, C continued to
work, and also D was saved of not finding another carpenter.
Problem here is that there was similar practical benefits in Stilk and Myrick case as the sailor was
worried the other sailors would not finish the work but they did so the sailor could be argued as being
practically benefitted with consideration.
1
