Law Essay Outline
General Intro to Law
Essay Outline
Summary of the Case:
-The Roffey brothers agreed to a contract with Shepherds Bush Housing Association stating they were going to renovate 27 flats in Twynholm Mansions in London.
-The Roffey brothers subcontracted the carpentry to Lester Williams for £20,000 which included a payment plan.
-Part of the job was done. £16,200 was paid.
-Lester Williams ran into financial difficulty. The price was too low.
-Now the Roffey Brothers were in trouble because they were about to face a penalty for late completion.
-The Roffey Brothers and Williams met and Lester was promised an extra £575 per flat for on time completion.
-Williams did eight flats and only received £1,500. He stopped working.
-New workers were brought in to complete the work. This angered Williams so he claimed.
-Williams was awarded £3,500 at the lower court. This was then later appealed by the Roffey Brothers.
-The appeal was dismissed
Dr. Foakes claimed there was no contract with any mention of interest payments and Mrs. Beer claimed this was invalid because she did not receive any consideration. The House of Lord’s decision upheld Mrs. Beer’s claim by applying the rule in Pinnel’s Case: payment of part of debt did not in itself constitute consideration for Mrs. Beer’s promise to forgo the balance15. Foakes v Beer and Re Selectmove Ltd. showed that partial payment of a debt is not viewed as good consideration. They both also showed that a promise to accept less could not have been enforced. However, Williams v Roffey Bros. proves that a promise to pay more can be enforced as long as the party paying will benefit from paying more. In Williams v Roffey, Roffey benefited from paying Williams more so that they were not a fault for the penalty of late completion and use their time higher new contractors. It is quite obvious that case of Williams v Roffey proceeded from the original rules of consideration. Their case is credited for taking a new path
Essay Outline
Summary of the Case:
-The Roffey brothers agreed to a contract with Shepherds Bush Housing Association stating they were going to renovate 27 flats in Twynholm Mansions in London.
-The Roffey brothers subcontracted the carpentry to Lester Williams for £20,000 which included a payment plan.
-Part of the job was done. £16,200 was paid.
-Lester Williams ran into financial difficulty. The price was too low.
-Now the Roffey Brothers were in trouble because they were about to face a penalty for late completion.
-The Roffey Brothers and Williams met and Lester was promised an extra £575 per flat for on time completion.
-Williams did eight flats and only received £1,500. He stopped working.
-New workers were brought in to complete the work. This angered Williams so he claimed.
-Williams was awarded £3,500 at the lower court. This was then later appealed by the Roffey Brothers.
-The appeal was dismissed
Dr. Foakes claimed there was no contract with any mention of interest payments and Mrs. Beer claimed this was invalid because she did not receive any consideration. The House of Lord’s decision upheld Mrs. Beer’s claim by applying the rule in Pinnel’s Case: payment of part of debt did not in itself constitute consideration for Mrs. Beer’s promise to forgo the balance15. Foakes v Beer and Re Selectmove Ltd. showed that partial payment of a debt is not viewed as good consideration. They both also showed that a promise to accept less could not have been enforced. However, Williams v Roffey Bros. proves that a promise to pay more can be enforced as long as the party paying will benefit from paying more. In Williams v Roffey, Roffey benefited from paying Williams more so that they were not a fault for the penalty of late completion and use their time higher new contractors. It is quite obvious that case of Williams v Roffey proceeded from the original rules of consideration. Their case is credited for taking a new path