Facts
- Williams, a subcontractor, was contracted to do carpentry work for Roffey Bros, the main contractor responsible for building a block of flats
- Williams ran into financial difficulty, and Roffey Bros promised more money for the work
- Completion allowed Roffey Bros to avoid a penalty clause for late completion of the block of flats
- Roffey Bros refused to pay the extra promised amount
Issue
- Had consideration been provided for Roffey’s Bros to pay extra, as according to Stilk v Myrick [1809], there is no consideration in extra payment for performing an existing duty
Decision
- Yes, claim allowed
Reasoning
- If there is no economic duress or fraud involved, consideration can be provided for the promise to pay more for an existing duty if the promisor obtains a practical benefit for paying more
- In this case, avoiding a penalty clause was a practical benefit for the promisor, Roffey Bros
