1.

FACTS
2. ISSUE(S)
3. DECISION
4. RATIO DECIDEND
5. OBITER DICDA
6. PERSONAL OPINION
FACTS:
Mr Lester Williams (the plaintiff) was contracted by Roffey Bros (the defendant), for the
carpentry work in 27 flats at Twynholm Mansions, Lillie Road, London W!, for
"2#,### payable in installments$ %t was a &nder a s&b contract of the contract between
hepherds B&sh 'o&sin( )ssociation Ltd and Roffey Bros to ref&rbish 27 flats$ Roffey
Bros s&bcontracted carpentry to Mr Lester Williams$ ome work was done and "*!,2##
was paid$ Williams+ work were (oin( slowly mostly beca&se of the short amo&nt of
financial s&pport from the defendant$ ,n - )pril *-.!, plaintiff and the defendant had a
meetin( where defendant promised an e/tra "070 per flat for on time completion$
Williams did ei(ht flats and stopped beca&se he had only (ot "*,0##$ The defendant was
(oin( to be liable &nder a penalty cla&se for late completion and new carpenters were
bro&(ht in$
ISSUE(S):

%n this case the iss&es were, whether the defendants+ admitted to pay an additional *#,1##
po&nds at the rate of 070 po&nds per completed flat, is &nenforceable since there was no
consideration for it$ )nd secondly, whether the additional payment was only payable as
each flat was completed$
DECISION:
The appeal was dismissed$ Williams (ot "1,0##$ )ccordin( to Lord 2&stice, Williams had
pro3ided (ood consideration e3en tho&(h he was takin( m&ch time to dischar(e his d&ty$
o, he sho&ld not (et all the money he was s&pposed to (et$
RATIO DECIDEND:

4o&rt considered the obli(ations of both the parties and (a3e a decision to satisfy both
parties$ Tho&(h the carpenter completed the work s&bstantially b&t he failed to do it on
time$ )nd the defendant also didn+t pay the amo&nt they promised$ o, the carpenter (ot
the payment for the work less some small ded&ction for defecti3e and incomplete item$


OBITER DICDA:
ome appeals which were disc&ssed in this case$ ,ne of them is based on
the decision in tilk 3s$ 'yrick (*.#-) 2 camp, 1*7$ 'ere two seamen were
replaced and deserted$ The e/tra pay was ref&sed and the plaintiff reco3ered
the e/tra 55555
We can find that, this e3ent is remotely related to the act&al case$
The plaintiff, a carpenter, had entered into a contract with the defendants in
eptember *-.0, the defendants worked for the ref&rbishin( a block of flats
in Twynholm Mansion, Little road, London $W$ ! with hepherds B&sh
'o&sin( )ssociation Ltd$ There are 2. flats in Twynholm Mansion, b&t the
work of ref&rbishment was to be carried o&t in 27 flats$
)ct&ally the defendants en(a(ed with the plaintiff in three main s&b
contracts incl&din( the5$$ on 2* 2an&ary, *-.!$ The defendants wanted to
pay the plaintiff

2#,### po&nds for the carpentry work to the5 and for the first and second
fi/ carpentry work$ They be(an work on - ,ctober, *-.0$ %n between )pril
#-, *-.! most of the work was completed and interim payments of *!,2##
po&nds were made$ B&t at that time the plaintiff faced scarcity of money and
the defendant wanted to pay e/tra *#,### po&nds at a rate of 070 po&nds for
each flat$
B&t after makin( the promise the defendant paid only *,### 6&ro$ Then the
carpenter stopped workin( and the defendants en(a(ed another carpenter to
complete the &nfinished works$ o, the work was delayed by one week with
the b&ildin( owner$

PERSONAL OPINION:
The decision was 7&st as both parties failed to keep their promises$ The defendant was in
a le(al dilemma for a cla&se in their contract with the hepherds B&sh 'o&sin(
)ssociation Ltd$ They had to finish their carpentry part sooner than the plaintiff had taken
to finish a portion of their work$ ,n the other hand, the plaintiff also didn+t (et proper
financial s&pport from the defendants$ o, the amo&nt they (ot for thair work completed
was ri(ht$
Mr R&pert 2ackson 84 held Williams sho&ld (et the ei(ht times "070 with a few
ded&ctions for defects and some of the "2,2## owin( from the ori(inal s&m$ 'e said that
they had a(reed that the ori(inal price was too low, and that raisin( it to a reasonable
le3el was in both sides+ interests$
The concept of economic d&ress pro3ided an answer to tilk+s old problem