WILLIAMS V ROFFEY BROS

Williams v Roffey Bros

Williams v Roffey Bros

Question:

Do you think that the decision in Williams's v Roffey Bros. [1990] 2 WLR 1153 should be extended to cover cases involving part payment of a debt? Give reasons for your answer

Introduction

In this particular case the defendants were construction contractors who went into an affirmation with Shepherds Bush Housing Association to refurbish impede of 27 flats. This agreement was subject to a liquidated damage clause as if they did not meet the requirements of the contract the entire contract will be considered as a revocation. The defendants instructed the claimant to manage the carpentry work for a cost of £20,000. Six months after commencing the work, the claimant realised he was charging less for the undertaken work and due to a wrong estimate the work could not be continued until the funds are paid in accordance to the work.

The Court of Appeal's decision in Williams v Roffey raised the question of whether Stilk v Myrick could still be said to be good law. The plaintiff carpenters, in completing the work on the flats, appeared to be doing no more than they were already obliged to do under their contract with the defendants.

Yet the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs should be able to recover the promised extra payments for the flats which they had completed. The Court came to this conclusion by giving consideration a wider meaning than had previously been thought appropriate. In particular, Glidewell LJ pointed to the 'practical benefits' that would be likely to accrue to the defendants from their promise of the additional money. They would be: ensuring that the plaintiffs continued work and did not leave the contract uncompleted avoiding a penalty clause which the defendants would have had to pay under their contract with the owners of the block of flats avoiding the trouble and expense of finding other carpenters to complete the work.

Discussion

Part payment

If one individual is obliged an addition of cash to another and acquiesces to yield part of this in full town, the RULE at widespread regulation (the RULE in Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 CoRep 117a) is that part-payment of a liability is not good concern for a pledge to decline the balance. Thus, if A is obliged B £50 and B acknowledges £25 in full approval on the due designated day, there is not anything to avert B from asserting the balance at a subsequent designated day, since there is no concern advancing from A to enforce the pledge of B to accept part-payment. This is because he is currently compelled to yield the full allowance, an affirmation founded on the identical standard as Stilk v Myrick (1809). It furthermore defends a creditor from the financial duress of his debtor.

In Pinnel's Case (1602), it was held that part-payment in itself was not consideration. However, it was held that the affirmation to accept part-payment would be binding if the debtor, at the creditor's demand, supplied some new ...