Only $2.99/month

Intention, Capacity, Consideration and Privity

Terms in this set (18)

o UNLESS the party promises to exceed their existing duty:
(Hartley v Ponsonby (1857))
Half the crew deserted a ship, and the rest were promised extra money to carry on working the ship to Bombay.

HELD: The Court held that there was consideration, because the crew had become so small that the remainder of the voyage was more dangerous than it had been when they made their contracts. In agreeing to carry on, the claimant was taking on duties beyond those in his original contract and had therefore provided consideration for the promise to pay extra.

o UNLESS the defendant would receive some extra benefit:
(Williams v. Roffey Bros. Ltd. (1990)).

RB had a contract to refurbish block of flats (contract A). In contract A there was a clause that stated that if the flats were not refurbished in time then a sum of money was payable to the owners. The defendant then subcontracted carpentry work to W (contract B), who later realised he had underestimated the cost of the work and needed more money to finish on time. RB agreed to pay £575 extra per flat as they wanted to avoid the penalty clause in their contract with block owners.

HELD: Although the claimant was not doing anything more that he originally agreed under contract B, the defendant had received a benefit from the claimant continuing with the work.

WHY? RB had obtained an extra practical benefit by avoiding the penalty clause in their contract with the block owners, the cost of the inconvenience of finding another contractor to finish the job and had also benefited from the altered working arrangements. Thus, both parties were providing fresh consideration.