Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd

Background
Defendant : Roffey Bros
Building contractors were contracted by Shepherds Bush Housing Association Ltd to refurbish 27 flats at Twynholm
Mansions. They subcontracted the carpentry to Mr Lester Williams for 20,00 payable in instalments.
Claimant : Mr Lester Williams. Carpenter.

Some of the carpentry work was done and 16,200 was paid to Mr Williams.
Then Mr Williams ran into financial difficulty because the price was too low.
Roffey Bros was going to be liable under a penalty clause for late completion so agree to pay Mr Williams 575 per
flat for on time completion.

Williams did 8 flats and stopped because he had only been paid 1,500. New carpenters were brought in.

Ruling

Consideration was provided by the claimant conferring a benefit on the defendant by helping them to
avoid the penalty clause.
Therefore the defendant was liable to make the extra payments promised.
The full amount owed for the eight flats (4600) or the original sum owed (2200).
Williams still received 3500 as awarded due to defects in the finished flats as the appeal by Roffey Bros
was dismissed.

Points of Law
This case tried to make use of the Promissory Estopple. This makes it possible for a person to whom a promise was
made, on which he was relied, to make an additional payment for which he is in any event bound to render the
binding conditions of contract to show that the promisor is estopped from claiming that there was so consideration.
Requirements for a Promissory Estopple include:

A pre-existing contract or legal obligation which is modified

Must be a clear unambiguous promise
Must be a change of position
It must be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on their promise
There must be no Economic Duress of fraud

In this case the Promissory Estopple had not been fully developed as there was an element of Economic Duress which
is best given by an example.
If person A agrees to undertake work at a fixed price, and before completion he declined to continue with it unless
person B agrees to pay an increased price, A may be guilty of securing Bs promise by taking unfare advantage of the
difficulties he will cause if he does not complete the work.
Williams received 3500 in damages