Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls [1991]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: Roffey Bros (D) was contracted to refurbish a block of flats for Shepherds Bush Housing Association Ltd. They subcontracted the carpentry work to Williams (C) for £20,000. Williams faced financial difficulties due to the low contract price and delayed payments. To avoid a penalty for late completion, Roffey Bros promised to pay an additional £575 per flat if Williams ensured the timely completion of the remaining work. Williams completed carpentry for eight flats but stopped after receiving only £1,500. Roffey Bros then refused to pay the additional amount, leading Williams to sue for the promised sum.

Issue: Whether a promise to pay more for the performance of existing contractual obligations constitutes valid consideration.

Held: The court found in favor of the claimant. Glidewell LJ held that the promise to pay more was supported by valid consideration because it provided Roffey Bros with a "practical benefit" by ensuring the timely completion of the work and avoiding the penalty clause.

Key Judicial Statement: Glidewell LJ explained that a promise to perform an existing contractual duty can be good consideration if it provides a practical benefit to the promisor.

💡 Leveluplaw: This case represents a significant shift from the traditional rule that performing an existing duty cannot constitute valid consideration. The introduction of the "practical benefits" doctrine allows for consideration in cases where a promise provides a practical advantage, such as avoiding penalties or ensuring timely performance. This approach adds flexibility to contract law, accommodating the practicalities of contractual variations.