Still of the third parties’ actions that is why

Still on
the issue of lack of consideration, it was discovered that Williams agreeing to
carry on working on the block of flats was supported by consideration. His Lordship
supported this reason that is based on his clarification of the judgement made
in past cases such as, Ward v Byham 1956 1 WLR 496; WILLIAMS V WILLIAMS 1957 1 WLR 14; lastly PAO ON V LAU YIU LONG 1980 AC 614
PC.
He has avoided the rule that is in the case, STILK V MYRICK (1809) 2 CAMP 317 opposing the
policy of consideration should be established in its submission. He then went
onto decide the law in the declaring that carrying on performing a current duty
for more money than agreed was not invalid for lack of consideration that is
provided. The agreement that covered paying more it is not based on deception
or economic duress, the party that has promised to be paying more gained more
benefits or dodged some losses as a outcome of their promise that is made. His Lordship’s
opinion was that any benefit that was gained or any loss that had been dodged
added up extra consideration to be supporting the new contract agreement that
has been made. His Lordship also discharged the additional argument that was
brought up by the defendants (building contractor, also known as Roffey Bros)
the fact that the consideration has not moved from the one receiving the
promise. His thought was that consideration did not outcome from one of the
third parties’ actions that is why it was given by the promisor and was a legal
matter.

Russell L.J agreed
with Glidewell L.J on the problem that the flats were mainly finished but not
all 100% yet. His Lordship had vacillated on the issues of the consideration though
he came to the decision that Roffey Bros retentive of the services Williams along
with completion of the formal payment structure following the finished fully
completed flats, this was an advantage to the Roffey Bros that added up to a
useful consideration. It should be noticed and noted that while coming to this conclusion
he considered the argument no one brought up about estoppel along with the fact
that Roffey Bros first price was unrealistic and not reasonable. This shows
that his lordships final conclusion was directed and influenced by fair and
reasonable values also principles.  

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now