In relation to the doctrine of consideration, is it possible for David Properties Ltd. to not pay the extra $10,000 that was promised to tom?
Enforceable promise must be supported by consideration under the contract law. The definition of consideration was defined by the courts based on the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres against Selfridge.
On the facts, David Properties Ltd. has promised to pay an extra $10,000 and the issue that arose was whether Tom provided any consideration on his part to David Properties Ltd. Tom would argue that he completed the job on time and this would be consideration to support the agreement that he had with David Properties Ltd. however, one must be aware that one of the rules of consideration is that it need only sufficient and not adequate, as it was illustrated in the case of Nestle against Chappell. The case of Stilk against Myrick tells us that performance of an existing contractual obligation is no good consideration. This is because the promisee, Tom was not conferring any new benefits to the promisor, nor suffered any detriment himself. The exception would be if Tom had performed his obligation over and above his contractual duties as was illustrated in the case of Hardley against Posonby and that this would be good consideration. The facts disclosed that tom had not done anything beyond his contractual duty and this is not support by god consideration. Alternatively, Tom may argue that David Properties Ltd. received practical benefit and this would be good consideration and support his promise and making it binding as illustrated in the case of Willams against Roffey Brothers.
Can David Properties Ltd. protect itself from being sued for damages for breach of their contractual obligations?
David Properties Ltd. may rely on the doctrine of frustration to argue that there is no contractual breach as the event that resulted in not performing his contract correctly was a...