3.

In the case, present Susan opened a live music venue which for its first concert
would be a charity event for the student union that would refurbish a new library.
This, in turn, led her to contract with Lisa, an owner of a small printing business for
the printing of some posters and handbills at a fixed price of £500. The work was to
be completed no later than 14 days before the concert date. Subsequently, Lisa
invited Terminator, a well-known band to play for the said event informing them of
the charitable cause the concert has. Which consequently Terminator accepted with
no mention of any payment.

A few weeks later, Lisa informed Susan that she could not be able to complete her
contract due to the increase in the cost of paper. Susan since it was too late to
contract another printer and because Lisa asked Susan for a further £200 to
complete the contract on time, she promised to pay the extra £200 which in turn
made Lisa subsequently finish the contract on time. After which, Susan discovered
one of her Lighting engineers was upsetting her stuff by being argumentative and
rude as a result Susan promised him an additional payment of £100 for him to cease
being rude to her staff. After the successful concert, Susan having heard that
Terminator had turned down a big event in order for them to appear for her charity
event. Susan Promised to pay the band £600. Which she later decided not to pay
Neil and Lisa for her promise of additional payment. Also, deciding not to pay
Terminator for the promise of payment.

Under English Law, in order for a promise to be enforceable consideration must be

given in return for the promise. As a general rule, a promise without consideration is
unenforceable, and a promise can be present or future, but past considerations is
not a consideration. Except acts done in response to the previous request will be a
good consideration if the promise to pay is made later.

In view of the case with the band Terminator. The promise of Lisa is enforceable. It
was held in Lampleigh vs Braithwaite (1615) the court held that if A does something
for B at their request and afterwards B promises to pay A for their trouble, then that
promise is a good consideration. The later promise was considered to be part of the
same single transaction and was, therefore, enforceable. Applying this, Terminator
did something without payment for Susan by playing in her concert and was
subsequently promised by Susan a payment of £600. Then, therefore, Terminator
can enforce payment for the promise made after Susan’s previous request.

In the case with Neil, who was given additional payment for the consideration of not
being argumentative and rude is not considered a valid consideration. In order for
consideration to be valid, it must be of Sufficient or Adequate Consideration.
Adequate consideration is those with the same market value or equivalent to what is
promised whilst sufficient consideration is of some value in the eyes of the law;
however, little. The law does not require adequate consideration but only requires
sufficient consideration. Which must not be empty or illusory.

As held in White vs Bluett, an intangible promise is not a consideration. Applying the

facts of the scenario with Neil, he had no valid consideration in order to bind the
promise with Susan. His promise of not being miserable while working was
insufficient due to it being empty or illusory and was only ultimately an intangible
promise.
Moreover, Susan’s Promise to Lisa was unbinding. It was held in Williams vs Roffey
Bros (1990) that in order for an existing duty to amount to consideration, there must
be a practical benefit, and there must not be any duress. In the case with Lisa and
Susan. There was already a consideration and promise that was binding. But the
additional £200 Lisa asked Susan for the completion of the contract may constitute
practical benefit but there is economic duress on the part of Susan. It is well
established that there is no practical benefit when there is duress. The duress would
materialize from the time that Lisa asked Susan for an additional £200, and Susan
had no other choice but to follow because It was already too late to look for another
printer.

Additionally, the performance of an existing contractual duty does not amount to

sufficient consideration as held in Stilk vs Myrick. Although when there is a practical
benefit and doing some extra work would be an exception to that rule established in
the case Stilk vs Myrick.

In sum, I will advise Susan that she has an obligation to pay her promises to the
band Terminator for the subsequent promise after a previous request amounting to
£600 in accordance with the rule established on Lampleigh vs Braithwaite (1615).
Although I would also advise Susan that she has no obligation to pay Neil as it
was established that there was no consideration for the additional payment,
therefore, making the promise invalid in lieu with the rule established in White vs
Bluett. Lastly, I would also advise Susan that she also has no obligation to pay for
the promise to Lisa due to the fact that she was held on economic duress by Lisa on
account of her demand for additional payment for the completion of her work,
therefore, not constituting consideration for the additional payment promised by
Susan.