Variance

Question 1

What is variance

Answer 1

Any changes to the conditions of the contract, whist it is being performed

Question 2

Stylk v Myrick 1809

Answer 2

the variance here was the offer of the ships capitan to pay them extra to get the ship back, however the courts ruled that this contract wasnt valid as the shipmen hadnt provided consideration by simply perforiming there contractualy obligated duties

Question 3

Williams v Roffey 1989

Answer 3

a “refinement,” to Stylk v Myrick, A promise to perform an existing contractual duty to the other party to the contract is not good consideration, unless the promisee confers a factual benefit on the promisor.

Question 4

The doctrine of economic distress

Answer 4

To establish economic duress, the claimant must prove that:

The defendant exerted illegitimate pressure;
The claimant entered into the contract because of the illegitimate pressure;

The claimant had no reasonable alternative to giving in to the pressure;

Atlas v Kafco

Question 5

Foakes v Beer

Answer 5

Agreement of Deferral of debt is no good consideration, as B by deferring the payment is not gaining any benefit,

the law here is unclear; the supreme court will have to look it over

Question 6

Re Selectmove

Answer 6

re-afrims the principle of Foakes v Beer in relation to the deferral or wavier of debt, even in the face of Williams v Roffry

the law here is unclear; the supreme court will have to look it over

Question 7

MWB Business exchange centres v rock advertising

Answer 7

Rock advertising pay a license fee to business exchange centre, for use of MWBs premises, A (MWB) is owed money by B (rock) and A offer to allow them to pay them through instalments,
The court of appeal however, deemed that consideration was obtained,
The usual benefit of obtaining money they would not have obtained, of course that’s not sufficient, the special benefit was that they didn’t have to find another client which would have taken a greater cost.

the law here is unclear; the supreme court will have to look it over

may cancel out foakes v beer, but thats unclear at this stage

Question 8

The Doctrine of promissory estoppel

Answer 8

A clear promise by the promissor intended to affect legal relations between the parties, for example, a promise that certain rights under a pre-existing contract will not be enforced

The promise must have altered his / her position in reliance upon the promise, that is, the promisee must have done something, (or not done something) in relation to the promise. This somethign must have been requested by the promisor

It must be inequitable for the promissor to go back on the promise.

established in Hughes v Metropolitian railway

Question 9

Hughes v Mertopolititan Railway

Answer 9

1. Mr Hughes served MR with a notice of repair, and so if they failed to perform the required repairs they would be evicted
   
   2. Metropolitan railway didn’t do the repairs because they were in the process of negotiating to sell the remainder of the lease
   3. Hughes then proceeded to attempt to evict MR, under the lease given,
   4. The court ruled mr Hughes cannot do this because by beginning negotiations was making it clear he wouldn’t enforce his pre sitting contract, that being his right to the original lease. Therefore fulfilling the conditions of the first condition of promissory estoppel, under like the regular debt example this was an implied promise, it was just one strong enough that such a ruling could be made.
   5. The last condition is indeed fulfilled as they choose not to do repairs relying upon the validity of the contract.