CBL ASSIGNMENT #2

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991]

The court in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls do not consider the rule set out in Stilk v
Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317, which had held that the performance of an existing duty was not
good consideration. As in this case there is a practical benefit to the promisor (Roffey Bros), and
the promisee (Williams) agrees to vary the contract to receive that benefit, therefore such an
agreement can be enforceable as long as it is not under duress. The practical benefit to Roffey
Bros& Nicholls, in the form of avoiding the penalty clause for late completion, constituted valid
consideration, and Williams was entitled to the extra payments. This case introduced the concept
of "practical benefits" as a factor in determining the enforceability of such agreements.