Williams V Roffey Bros/Foakes V Beer essay
Despite Lord Blackburn's very convincing dissent from the majority in Foakes v Beer, the rule in Pinnel's Case remains in force. The landscape changed dramatically when the Court of Appeal ruled. The rationale in Roffey appears to question the decisions in Pinnel's Case and Foakes v Beer. In both cases it can be said that a practical advantage was granted to the corresponding parties. Essay Sauce, Williams v Roffey Bros. amp Nicholls Contractors Ltd. 1991 1. Plaintiff Williams was a carpenter hired by defendants Roffey Brothers Contractors to complete the work. on a block of apartments for a total of 20,000. Williams encountered financial difficulties that prevented him from completing the work on time. Roffey Bros thus offered Williams an additional 10, but where this is a matter of partial repayment of debts the application of the principle in Williams v Roffey Bros does not apply, see Re. On this basis, the rather more The strict view of Foakes v Beer would apply and the benefit of receiving part payment itself does not suffice as consideration; after all, a partial payment is not possible, Williams v Roffey Bros. There the plaintiff was a carpenter hereinafter referred to as the sub-contractor who had agreed with the defendant hereinafter called the builder to carry out carpentry work in each flat being renovated by the builder. The builder agreed to pay the sum of $20 for the work. The English Court of Appeal decision of MWB Business Exchange Centers Ltd v Rock Advertising, 'MWB Business', is an important case on the doctrine of. of the law should be a judicial intervention by the High Court to reconcile the logical inconsistencies between Foakes v Beer and Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls.