The Doctrine of Consideration - Case Study Example

THE DOCTRINE OF CONSIDERATION Introduction Consideration can be described as the idea of legal value in relation to contracts. It is something that has value, and promised to another individual in the course of making a contract or agreement. It can often be in many forms, including physical objects, money, services and various actions that may be performed according to the particular agreement. The consideration needed to develop a legally enforceable agreement or contract involves a legal detriment and bargained for element that has to be incurred by the party referred to as the promise or a certain kind of legal benefit that is given to the promisor. In the aspect of common law, it is a precondition that all the parties involved to offer consideration before the contract can be described as being binding. However, the doctrine of consideration sometimes happens to be irrelevant in various jurisdictions. It is important to note that present-day commercial litigant dealings have withheld the association between a deed and a promise as being a reflection over the nature of the contractual considerations. This paper examines the impacts of the decisions made in the Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors), concerning the doctrine of consideration as provided for in the English Law. The doctrine of Consideration The basic proposition according to the English Law that not every promise made is legally enforceable and binding requires that courts develop a mechanism for solving problems in the process of distinguishing non-enforceable and enforceable obligations (Schuette 2005, 46). Courts and other kinds of tribunals often demand this task when it comes to solving different kinds of disputes in employment. This has to be the same as how it happens in other courts concerning the commercial context (Countouris 2007, 12). For a long time, the classical common law in the UK has dominated the principle of bargain, something that has made it the predominant or universal explanation given for the contractual liabilities (Chen 2005, 23). However, it is often supplemented by the intentions developed in creating legal relations. In this case, the same is the commands in the doctrine over legal thoughts that the courts have been equally prepared in many instances to develop consideration where it is conspicuously missing instead of questioning its importance. It has often been argued that the employment law in England has immensely developed to a special condition whereby the idea of consideration is not considered on a consistent basis as the dominating evidence when it comes to contractual intents (Smith 2001, 64). Some of the main points of interest include benefits accrued to post formations like rises in salaries and wages where duties and responsibilities remain unchanged (Raatma & Murphy 2000, 67). These are instance where the concept of enforcement has to confront some of the traditional prohibitions when it comes to enforcing various promises about fore for the same. In many instances in the English law, the lack of consideration happens to be ignored or is not noticed at all (Guerrina 2005, 23). Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls This case, concerning issues of Contractual law has been widely cited in the United Kingdom. The juries in this case made a ruling that in the process of varying a case, the court has to be fast enough in finding a consideration. This has to take place where the factual benefits are offered from one person to another. In the case, a construction company in the name of Shepherds Bush Association Inc., gave a contract to Roffey Bros to make a refurbishment of about 27 flats, located at Lillie Road in London – the Twynholm Mansions. Additionally, the company subcontracted carpentry aspects to Mr. Williams Lester for a total of £20,000, that were payable in agreed installments. Williams managed to do part of the work, in which a total of £16,200 was paid in line with the agreement. Thereafter, Williams ran into financial difficulties since the price offered had been quite low. Realizing that he was going to be late to be charged for the penalty of late completion, Roffey Bros engaged the company in a meeting in which they agreed to offer an additional £575 for each flat on timely completion of the flat. Williams managed only eight flats and reached at a stop once again since he had received only £1,500 (Devono L. 2012, 6). The company later decided to bring on board new carpenters who later managed to complete the job that was remaining. In the case, Jackson Rupert held that Williams was entitled to eight times the amount £575, which had been promised by the company in the meeting they had held. This amount was to include some slight deductions for some defects as well as an amount up to £2,200 regarding the original sum earlier arrived at (Devono L. 2012, 8). He explained that they had made an agreement that the initial original price was actually very low; for this reason, raising the amount was to be reasonable in reference to the interests of all the parties involved. The final decision in the case In making the judgment, Glidewell LJ explained in his perspective that Wiliams had offered a better consideration in as much as he was only acting his particular pre-existing duties and responsibilities. Williams received approximately £3,500 (Devono L. 2012, 7), although this was not full payment for the damages suffered. He also explained that the concept of promissory estoppels had not been clearly explained; in addition, it was not properly developed in this particular case. In this case, the idea of economic duress as brought out in this argument offered good answers to the old problem by Stilk (Law Teacher 2014). This was the test the effective understanding of whether a contract could be varied legitimately. In this case, it was concluded that this was possible and would be done in the following manner. If a party, say A engages in a contract agreement to employ another party in the name of B, before the deal is finally concluded, A has all the reasons to have some doubts about whether will managed to complete his part of the bargain in the most effective way. What follows is that A had to make a promise to offer more payment to B; thereafter, what follows is that A gets a benefit in practice, which in other words can be said that he obviates a disbenefit because of giving the particular promise. In such a case, there is no case of fraud or economic duress. In this case, it is important to understand that the practical advantage because of timely completion, in as much as it is a pre-existing duty has to be performed and makes up the good consideration. Analysis of the judgment From the judgment that was arrived at in the case of Williams v Roffey Bros, an argument has emerged to claim that the courts seem to have had a shift in the manner in which they perceive their roles. In this case, Russell LJ observed that nowadays courts are expected to be better placed in the process of finding the real course for existence, which is referred to as consideration. This is important as far as reflection of the particular intention of the parties is concerned. Additionally, in a separate view, Purchas LJ explained that consideration was being deleted in most of the decisions that the courts were making. It had been suggested that Purchas LJ and Russell LJ were deeply concerned that the courts would make a thorough examination of the transaction with the purpose of findings reasonable grounds for upholding transactions. This reasoning, from a perspective of thorough analysis (James 2011, 72), overlooks the basic function played by the principle of consideration towards developing an effective contractual obligation between the parties involved at the time they are exchanging the agreement contract in their promises. Another important point of view that has arisen from the case is that a benefit given to the promisor, who is detected during or after the actual performance of the certain contract does not often qualify. This ends up leaving the parties in the contract in a difficult position that involves not only knowing is a certain promise is legally binding in the event the court terminates the transaction. Application of the judgement in Williams v Roffey Soon after the case of Williams vs Roffey had been finalized, the same judgment was applied in a case that involved the ship company and a contracted company in the process of building and delivering the ship. In this regard, the defendant in the case (Donohue 2007, 61), the defendant has been contracted to build a ship and deliver it on a day that had been agreed. In the course of building the ship, the market began falling, leaving the plaintiff with the option of changing the delivery of the ship in respect to the delay in the market factors (Schmidt 2009, 34). The defendant later provided a status for the most favored customer to the purchaser of the ship in the hope of securing an earlier delivery date for the particular ship. After the discussion, the plaintiff arrived at a decision that the delivery of the ship would be on the original date. The status of the “Most favored Client” meant that a refund was to be provided for the price differential between the price that was being offered by other people in the falling market and that of the price by the plaintiff’s ship. Later, the defendant became adamant in making the payment (Keenan & Smith 2001, 87). The big question that was raised was whether the letters and other documents in manifestation of this arrangement would lead to a kind of binding agreement. In his argument, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was bound to make delivery of the ship according to the agreed original date. In his argument, Hirst J explained that the law in question had taken radical developments because of the decisions arrived at in the case of Williams v Roffey. In his analysis of the case, he got special considerations relating to the practical benefits that would arise to the builders of the ship whose other customers were to develop an interest when this transaction was considered completed. The counsel on the side of the defendant made an argument that a thin interpretation of the judgment in the case of William v Roffey in comparison of the case of Stilk v. Myrick had been directly preserved. In was argued that the practical benefits in this case would not be effective and enough in amounting to the consideration in case where the particular defendant was the actual party that offered the services (Falkner 2005, 37). Conclusion The case of William v Roffey provides a perfect understanding and analysis of the English law and the way it is practiced in respect to the concept of consideration in contracts and agreements. In this case, it can be argued that the Employment law in England has been developed on the condition that considerations are not considered consistently with respect to the profound evidence of the contractual intent. The judgment arrived in this case, has greatly influenced the manner in which consideration are arrived it hen companies are engaging in issues of contract with people and other companies for provision of certain kinds of services (Atlas 2000, 56). In this case, it is important that people have an effective understanding of these legal issues before engaging in contractual issues so that one party does not end up exploiting the other (Quigg 2011, 34). Bibliography Atlas, N. 2000. Alternative dispute resolution. Section of Litigation, ABA, Chicago, Ill. Chen W, M. 2005. Contract Law. Oxford University Press Inc., New York. Countouris, N. 2007. The changing law of the employment relationship comparative analyses in the European context. Ashgate, Aldershot, England. Devono L. 2012. Williams v Roffey; case briefs. Retrieved from, < http://casebrief.me/casebriefs/williams-v-roffey/> Donohue, J. 2007. Economics of labor and employment law. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, UK. Falkner, G. 2005. Complying with Europe EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Guerrina, R. 2005. Mothering the union: Gender politics in the EU. Manchester University Press, Manchester. James, G. 2011. Families, care-giving and paid work: Challenging labour law in the 21st century. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Keenan, D., & Smith, K. 2001. Smith & Keenans English law (13th ed.). Longman, Harlow. Law Teacher 2014. Traditional rules of consideration. Retrieved from. < http://www.lawteacher.net/consideration-law/essays/traditional-rules-of-consideration.php> Quigg, A. 2011. Bullying in the arts vocation, exploitation and abuse of power. Gower, Farnham, Surrey. Raatma, L., & Murphy, M. 2000. Consideration. Bridgestone Books, Mankato, Minn. Schuette, S. 2005. Consideration. Capstone Press, Mankato, Minn. Schmidt, K. 2009. Labor and employment law and economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Smith, P. 2001. Bagehot the English constitution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England. Read More