ABSTRACT
In Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom sought to bring commercial certainty to the question of the legal effect of no oral modification clauses. However, the other ‘truly fundamental issue’ facing the Court was ducked: namely, what is the law relating to consideration for variation agreements? Thanks to its decision about no oral modification clauses, the Court did not need to explore the apparent inconsistency between the part-payment of debt rule in Foakes v Beer and the practical benefit test for consideration for variation agreements in Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. The Supreme Court went no further than pouring some rhetorical cold water on the Court of Appeal’s decision that the practical benefit test could be utilised in cases like Foakes v Beer. This has left some ‘uncertainty’ in this area of contract law in the United Kingdom which remains to be cleared. How far does the decision in Williams v Roffey extend. Is the full rigor of the pre-existing duty rule for variation agreements still good law?
Roberts, Marcus, Variations and Consideration in New Zealand and Canada: Gloria Jean’s Coffees International Pty Ltd v Daboko Ltd and Rosas v Toca (January 1, 2021). [2021] Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 33-41.
First posted 2021-03-11 06:53:07
Leave a Reply