Case Study On Law Of Contract: Damian’s Case
Damian is opposed to a consideration case, Consideration is very important in a contract, it means that both party agreed to the contract in order to gain something in exchange, this something is called "consideration".
In Damian case, the £1000 that was agreed by Damian to great garden is the consideration and the consideration of great garden is to landscape his garden. Great gardens agreed on landscaping his garden and agreed on finishing the work by the end of June but the company noticed that they were short on time and workers, Which means that the company breached the contract, Damian had to choose between either to look for another company to finish the work but it would take time or to pay £1000 extra to great gardens to finish the work, he chooses to pay the £1000 in order to gain time for his daughter wedding. When the time comes Damien needs to pay the £1000, However in the case of Williams v Roffey in 1989 where the building contractors agreed with a housing association to renovate flats for an agreed price and a deadline, few months later the builders noticed that the price agreed on was not enough to finish the work so they decided to increase the price in order to finish the work , the housing company agreed on paying extra, few weeks later the housing company did not pay the full amount to the workers and decided to look for new ones. This is exactly what happened in Damien's case they've both agreed on a limited time and an agreed price. This can also follow the case of Stilk v Myrick where the sailors deserted the ship which means they did not go past their duty, therefore they did not give any consideration and were doing what it says in the contract and they need to accomplish it, and the captain did not have to pay extra money. It exactly what happened with Damian therefore Damian should not pay the extra money. Great gardens proposed extra money, but they are not doing anything more or new than what they initially contracted to do, so there will be no consideration on their side which would lead to breaking the rule of consideration therefore Damien's would not have to pay the £1000.
Damien's should pay the £1000 if the work is dangerous and risky, as followed by the case of Hartley v Ponsoby in 1857 where the captain promised extra money for the crew but did not pay them at the end of the trip, however the ship they were on was extremely damaged which made their work in dangerous condition, but that's not Damien's case the work that's being agreed on is far from being dangerous or bad working conditions, therefore Great gardens can easily solve this problem just by hiring more workers.
Furthermore, Great gardens knew that Damian is in a hurry due to his daughter wedding approaching soon, they might have seized the opportunity from Damien's because they knew that he was short on time and can do whatever it takes to finish the landscaping and move on, so they made everything up in order to put Damien in a dead-end and force him to pay more. The court would take consideration all these options and decide whether Damien needs to pay the £1000 or not.
Damian contacted careful caters to provide food and waitress services, both of the parties agreed on the price. Careful caters decided to decorate the house with balloons and flowers while Damien was unaware, Damian appreciated the extra work, so he promised to pay an extra of £200 to careful caters.
Damian is not oblige to pay the £200 because its past consideration, Damian made just a promise both parties did not agreed on it on the contract. Damien's case is very similar to Mc Ardle in 1951 a house was renovated with new paints and furnished with new equipment, someone inspected the house and were astonished with the work and promised to pay them after their work is finished, after a while they did not receive any payment they decided to sue. After taking it to court the case was unsuccessful because of past consideration.
However, maybe carful caters decided to do extra decoration in order to attract customers in the wedding, extra money would be appreciated by the company but they did not agreed on it so it’s up to Damien's decision if he wants to pay them or not, on the other hand Damien made the promise to pay the £200 to careful caters while he was under the influence of alcohol, its known that if someone is under the influence of alcohol they are not aware of their actions which means any contracts made will not be valid, Damien's was not aware of his actions therefore he does not need to pay the £200.
In my opinion, Damian could easily find other contactors to work with and avoiding paying the £1000 to great gardens, on the other hand suing them is an option because great gardens have made a breach in the contract they could not finish the work that was agreed on since the beginning. in the matter of careful caters, Damien promised them £200 that was not agreed on which makes it past consideration, while making this promise he was under the influence of alcohol which makes the promise not valid.
