Name of Case: Williams v Roffey Brothers
Position: Defendant
Case Brief
Facts
The plaintiff is a carpenter while the defendants are building contractors. The defendants had
contracted to refurbish a block of flats. They sub-contracted the plaintiff in the building contract
they had made with Shepherds Bush Housing Association Ltd. The defendants were the main
contractors of the contract. There are 28 flats in the Twynholm Mansions but the refurbishment
was to be conducted in 27 flats.
The plaintiff was engaged by the defendants to carry out the refurbishment including the roof for
a price of £20,000. The contract was entered into on 21 January 1986. The amount was to be
paid in instalments related to the work completed. The plaintiff got into financial difficulties by
the end of March 1986 because the price was too low and improper supervision of the work. By
the time he got into financial difficulty, he had received 80 percent of the price but the work that
was yet to be completed was more than 20 percent. The defendants on the other hand were liable
in a penalty clause in the main contract in event that the work was not completed in time.
The defendants were aware of the plaintiff’s difficulties and that the price for the work was too
low. The defendants on 9 th April 1986 promised to pay the plaintiff a further sum of £10,300
payable at the rate of £575 for each flat in which the carpentry work was completed. The plaintiff
continued with the work until end of May. By that time, the defendants had only made one
further payment of £1,500 for completion of eight flats. The plaintiff ceased the work and the
defendants engages other carpenters to complete the work. The defendants incurred one week’s
time penalty in their main contract.
The action was commenced by the plaintiff to recover the money owed to them by the
defendants. The judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to the additional payments for the eight
flats, less certain deductions. The defendants appealed.
Issue one
Whether substantial completion entitles the plaintiff to payment.
Rule
The quantum meruit principle or doctrine was established in Hoenig v. Isaacs. 1 The doctrine’s
effect is payment or compensation for substantial completion of work. The compensation to be
paid is equivalent to the initial contract price for completion of the work less the defects or
uncompleted work.
Analysis
1 Hoenig v. Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176
Plaintiff’s arguments
The plaintiff avers that there was good consideration relying on substantial completion of the
eight flats. The plaintiff referred to Hoenig v. Isaacs. 2 In this particular case, the plaintiff was
employed by the plaintiff to decorate and provide the flat with furniture for £750. The terms of
payment were, “net cash, as the work proceeds; and balance on completion.” The defendant paid
£400 and moved into the flat and used the furniture and refused to pay the balance on basis of
defect in some of the work done. The official referee found there was a defect but the work was
substantially performed. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff was entitled to the balance
due less deductions for the defective work. The judge’s decision on quantum meruit, payment for
work done, was in support of the judge’s decision in the present case. The plaintiff should thus
be compensated on a quantum meruit basis.
Defendant’s arguments
The defendants argue that the additional payment was to be paid on completion of a flat. The
additional payment clause read, "The sum of £10,300 was to be paid at the rate of £575 per flat to
be paid on the completion of each flat". According to the defendants this did not imply
substantial completion but full completion of a flat for the additional payment to be payable.
Conclusion and holding
The judge’s decision was based on quantum meruit. It was held the plaintiff was entitled to
payment of the balance for the eight flats that had been substantially completed.
Issue two
Whether there was consideration in support of the additional payment.
Rule
Consideration has three requirement; consideration must be sufficient and need not be adequate,
past consideration is not consideration and moves from the promisee to the promisor. The
principles are laid down in Tweddle v Atkinson. 3
Analysis
Defendant’s arguments
The defendant based lack of consideration on failure to reap the benefit of avoidance of delay
penalty and incurring of expenses and trouble of engaging other carpenters. The doctrine they
relied on was pre-existing contractual obligations. The case that the defendants sought to rely on
Stilk v. Myrick. 4 The agreement to pay the extra money to the mariners for the two deserters was
held to be unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The reasoning of the judges was that the
mariners had undertaken to do all it takes to ensure a smooth voyage from and to the destination
2 ibid
3 Tweddle v. Atkinson, 1 B. & S. 393 (1861).
4 Stilk v. Myrick, 1809 E.R.170 1168 (1809)
port. The remaining mariners were therefore obligated to bring the ship back to safety as a pre-
existing contractual obligation.
Additionally, the defendants argued that the plaintiff subjected them to economic duress relying
on Pao On v Lau Yiu Long. 5 The judges held that the requirements for proving economic duress
had not been established.
Plaintiff’s argument
The plaintiff’s argument was based on quantum meruit. He sought for compensation for the
substantial completion of the eight flats by the plaintiff.
Conclusion or holding
Glidewell LJ considered the benefits that were to be reaped by the defendants through the service
of the plaintiff. Mr. Evans, the defendant’s attorney, asserted that the defendants would benefit in
terms of continuity of the work, avoidance of delay penalty and avoidance of expense and
trouble of engaging other carpenters. The consideration was thus achieved through the practical
benefits accrued to the defendants as a result of the services of the plaintiff.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )