Harry paid a plumber £300 for a job priced at £300. Midway, the plumber threatens to leave unless paid £450 for the same work. Harry agrees and later refuses to pay the extra. Applying Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey, which is correct?

Answer and explanation

Correct answer: D. Unenforceable if Harry got no practical benefit, but possibly enforceable if he got one without duress

  1. Step 1: Stilk v Myrick holds that performing an existing duty is not consideration.
  2. Step 2: Williams v Roffey adds that a practical benefit, without fraud or duress, can be good consideration.
Answer
Unenforceable if Harry got no practical benefit, but possibly enforceable if he got one without duress.
Why not the others: Agreement alone is not consideration; Roffey allows enforcement in some cases; a deed would avoid the need for consideration but is not required where practical benefit exists.

Practise more Formation, consideration and intention.

Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed SQE1 (Solicitors Qualifying Examination) mock tests.

All Formation, consideration and intention questionsTake a mock test

More Formation, consideration and intention questions