Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
Contract: Essential Requirements and Formation
Existing duties and part payment of a debt
- 3 things to know
- Components 2 and 3
Overview
Stilk v Myrick and Hartley v Ponsonby, the practical benefit principle in Williams v Roffey and its limits, Pinnel's Case and Foakes v Beer on part payment, and what Rock Advertising left of it.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
How did Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) differ from Stilk v Myrick?
What is the practical benefit principle in Williams v Roffey Bros [1990]?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
What is the rule in Stilk v Myrick (1809)?
Model answer
Stilk v Myrick (1809) held that performing an existing contractual duty is not consideration for extra pay. The remaining sailors were already bound to work the ship home.
- 2
How did Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) differ from Stilk v Myrick?
Model answer
Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) involved a crew reduced so severely that the voyage became far more dangerous. The remaining sailors went beyond their original duty and so earned the promised extra payment.
- 3
What is the practical benefit principle in Williams v Roffey Bros [1990]?
Model answer
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] held that a practical benefit can amount to consideration for extra payment. Avoiding a late completion penalty and the cost of finding new carpenters was such a benefit.
- 4
What conditions limited the practical benefit principle in Williams v Roffey?
Model answer
The extra promise must be given without fraud or duress and must confer a real practical benefit. The promisor must also have promised the additional payment freely.
- 5
Why is Williams v Roffey difficult to reconcile with Stilk v Myrick?
Model answer
Stilk v Myrick treats existing duty as worthless in law, while Williams v Roffey values the practical advantage of avoiding breach. Critics argue that almost any performance confers some practical benefit.
- 6
Is a duty owed to a third party good consideration?
Model answer
Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) held that performing a duty owed to a third party is good consideration. The nephew's marriage was already promised to his fiancée but still supported the uncle's promise.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Contract: Essential Requirements and Formation, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.