Consideration cases Flashcards
what were the facts in Williams v Roffery Bros
Williams (plaintiff) was a carpenter who was contracted to perform work for Roffery (defendants). When it became apparent that Williams could not complete on time, Roffery promise to pay Williams extra money (9th April) to ensure it was still complete on time.
Was Roffery liable to pay the extra amount?
yes, roffrey was liable to pay the extra amount as Roffey came up with the idea to pay more, there was no pressure, and thus there is valid consideration.
what are the facts in Re Selectmove Ltd
The Inland Revenue sought a winding-up order against Selectmove for unpaid PAYE tax. The company appealed, claiming that a tax collector had agreed to let them pay the back taxes in installments instead of being shut down.
Was there consideration for this agreement as the company were only paying what they already owed?
it was held that there was no consideration and the appeal was dismissed as the Williams v Roffery principle only applies in cases where actual work is done or goods are supplied in exchange for payment. In this case, Selectmove was not providing any new benefit to the Inland Revenue that would constitute consideration.
what were the facts in Gloria Jean’s International Coffee v Daboko
Refusal to pay franchise fee.
What, if any, consideration is required to vary an existing agreement? And, consequently, was the agreement successfully varied in this case?
it was held that There was consideration and contract was varied so Daboko version of agreement is binding.
what was the reasoning behind the decision in gloria jeans
Judge held was not for him to conclude that consideration is no longer necessary for variation in NZ.
Decision was bound by COA approval of William v Roffery Bros. Leading case for consideration in NZ.
