Applying that rule identified above, according to the Common law, would the £ 10,300 be due and payable? Explain referencing appropriate legal theory derived from that rule.

Consideration Theory – Rule of Sufficiency

Alternate facts for case Williams v Roffey (hypothetical):

The claimants Williams contracted with the defendant Roffey to do carpentry work in a subcontract for a construction project involving refurbishment of a block of flats for which Roffey was the main or general contractor. The subcontracted carpentry work was running late and so the defendants, concerned that the job might not be finished on time and that they would likely have to pay under a penalty clause in the main contract, agreed to pay the claimant an extra £ 10,300 to ensure the work was completed on time. In response, the claimants Wiliams, previously working on a two-shift basis, hired a third shift. The defendant Roffey later refused to pay the extra amount to Roffee even though the carpentry work had been completed on time.

[a] Which legal rule need be applied to resolve the legal issue over whether the extra £ 10,300 is due and payable? Identify that legal rule. (Rule must be based on consideration theory. Otherwise, zero marks will be awarded for the whole question set.)

Ans) Rule of corollary of sufficiency.

[b] Applying that rule identified above, according to the Common law, would the £ 10,300 be due and payable? Explain referencing appropriate legal theory derived from that rule. [Note: answers that do not utilize the rule identified in [a] above will received ZERO credit.]

Ans) Yes. In reference to the rule of corollary of sufficiency, the payment is due and payable as hiring a third shift requires payment to the hired workers which is considered as an extra cost. In addition, if the third shift starts at midnight, there is an extra risk borne as working at night is more dangerous than working at daytime.

[c] Williams maintains that Roffee bought “insurance” in the form of “peace of mind” in consideration for that consideration of £ 10,300. Using relevant legal theory, present an argument that refutes that contention. .

[Note: answers that do not utilize relevant legal theory will received ZERO credit.]