Williams v. Roffey Bros (1991) — Practical Benefit as Consideration

Quick Summary

Roffey Brothers hired Williams to do carpentry on a flat-renovation project. Williams ran short of money. To keep the work on schedule and avoid penalty clauses, Roffey promised extra payments. Work continued, then payments stopped. The court said the promise to pay more was enforceable because Roffey gained a “practical benefit” (no delay, no penalties, smoother coordination). This refined the old rule in Stilk v. Myrick.

Issues

• Is there sufficient consideration when someone promises more money for duties already owed?
• Can a practical benefit to the promisor satisfy consideration?

Rules

• If the promisor gains a real, practical benefit (or avoids a detriment), that can be sufficient consideration for a promise to pay more.
• The rule applies where there is no fraud, duress, or undue pressure.
• Stilk v. Myrick is refined, not discarded: look for practical benefit beyond bare performance.

Arguments

The Court of Appeal held the extra payment promise enforceable. By avoiding penalty clauses and keeping the project on track, Roffey received a practical benefit. That benefit was enough consideration, as there was no duress or fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

A promise to pay more for the same work can be binding if the promisor obtains a practical benefit (or avoids a disbenefit) and there is no improper pressure.

Why It Matters

• Modernises consideration by recognising commercial realities.
• Helps keep projects moving without re-drafting full new contracts.
• Sets limits: does not usually apply to part-payment of debt.

Key Takeaways

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “PAY MORE? SHOW GAIN.”

1. Identify Benefit: What practical gain did the promisor get?
2. Rule Out Pressure: Any duress or fraud?
3. Bind the Promise: If real gain + no duress → consideration is sufficient.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is there sufficient consideration when a contractor promises extra payment for performance already owed?

Rule

Consideration exists if the promisor receives a practical benefit (or avoids a detriment) and the promise is free of duress or fraud.

Application

Extra payment kept the work on time and avoided penalty clauses for Roffey. Those are concrete practical benefits. No duress shown.

Conclusion

The extra payment promise is enforceable. Practical benefit = sufficient consideration here.

Glossary

Practical Benefit

A real-world gain like avoiding penalties, saving time, or smoother performance.

Pre-Existing Duty

An obligation already owed under a contract.

Economic Duress

Improper pressure that vitiates consent to a contract change.

FAQs

Related Cases