Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Contractors Ltd [1990] is an English contract law case that dealt with the issue of practical benefit as a consideration for a contract variation.
In this case, Roffey Bros & Nicholls Contractors Ltd (Roffey) had contracted with a housing association to carry out refurbishment work on a block of flats. Roffey had subcontracted the carpentry work to Williams. Williams encountered financial difficulties and informed Roffey that he was unable to complete the work. Roffey was concerned that this would cause delays and additional costs, and so agreed to pay Williams an additional sum of money to complete the work.
Williams later sued Roffey for the additional sum of money, arguing that the agreement to pay him the additional sum was a variation of the original contract, and that there was no consideration for this variation. Roffey argued that the practical benefit of avoiding delays and additional costs was sufficient consideration for the variation.
The court held that the practical benefit of avoiding delays and additional costs was sufficient consideration for the contract variation. The court held that the rule in Stilk v Myrick, which stated that performance of an existing contractual duty is not sufficient consideration for a variation, did not apply in this case. The court stated that where a party receives a practical benefit from a variation, there is consideration for the variation, even if the other party is not giving up anything new.
The case of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Contractors Ltd [1990] is an important case in the law of contract as it established the principle that practical benefit can be sufficient consideration for a contract variation, even if the other party is not giving up anything new. The case confirmed that a party can receive consideration for a contract variation if they receive a practical benefit, such as avoiding delays or additional costs.Regenerate response