Williams v Roffey Bros is a deviation from the customary notion that fulfilling a

contractual obligation isn't enough consideration. This was the stance taken in Stilk v

Myrick, and it maintained a fairly reasonable legal position for about 200 years.

Surprisingly, that judgement hasn't been overturned; it was just distinguished by Williams,

although on dubious grounds, according to AFAIC. Take a look at the decision and see

whether you agree. It also defined the idea of "practical advantage" and, in many ways,

tainted the Hamer v Sidway judgement.

In Williams v Roffey, the court impliedly acknowledged that the rules of consideration are

a technical trap for the naive, and was willing to take a pragmatic and commercial

approach to the circumstances. Consideration is a technical criterion that avoids business

agreements between parties who don't know how much a peppercorn or a penny is worth.

Now that we have a notion of economic hardship, the conventional economic duress

rationale is no longer valid. If Roffey's commercialistic approach became more generally

embraced, it would be the death knell for consideration. When reading the Roffey decision,

I can't help but think that the CoA would have preferred to do away with consideration

entirely - despite the fact that they were clearly acting in defiance of House of Lords

authority.

Consideration williams v roffey

Contract Law (LAW1108)