Williams v Roffey Brothers & Nicholls

v Roffey Brothers & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1, 18

Roffey Brothers entered into a contract to refurbish a block of flats for a fixed price of £20,000. They sub-contracted carpentry work to Williams. It became apparent that Williams was threatened by financial difficulties and would not be able to complete his work on time. This would have breached a term in the main contract, incurring a penalty. Roffey Brothers offered to pay Williams an additional £575 for each flat completed. Williams continued to work on this basis, but soon it became apparent that Roffey Brothers were not going to pay the additional money. He ceased work and sued Roffey Brothers for the extra money, for the eight flats he had completed after the promise of additional payment.

The Court of Appeal held that Roffey Brothers must pay Williams the extra money, as they had enjoyed practical benefits from the promise they had made to Williams. The benefits they received from it include: Having the work completed on time, not having to spend money and time seeking another carpenter and not having to pay the penalty.

In the circumstances, these benefits were sufficient to provide consideration for the promise made to Williams of additional payment.

It now seems that the performance of an existing duty may constitute consideration for a new promise, in the circumstances where no duress or fraud are found and where the practical benefits are to the promisor.

McKendrick, E. (2007) Contract Law. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan Law Masters

Kelly, D. and Holmes, A. (1998) Principles of Business Law. Great Britain: Cavendish Publishing Limited