Williams v Roffey Bros [1990]

Stands for principle that courts may now recognise a
‘practical’ benefit as consideration.
Defendant, aware that plaintiff sub-contractor might
not finish work on time, agreed to pay extra if deadline met.
Plaintiff was not then fully paid this extra money.
In Court of Appeal, Glidewell LJ:
Following cases such as Pau On, situation is:
If result of A’s promise to perform contractual obligations
on time means that B obtains benefit or obviates disbenefit then this is
capable of being consideration for B’s promise of additional payment.
Limits and refines principle in Stilk v Myrick, but does not contravene.
Defendant here had obtained benefit, so there was consideration
to support agreement to make bonus payments.
[Will the recognition of ‘practical’ benefit as consideration
change much?
Probably not, eg in context of part-payment of money
debt, Court of Appeal has declined to have regard to ‘practical’ benefit.]