Home > Contract Law. Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd advocates for such a shift in the boundaries of contractual liability, and thus initiates controversies regarding its desirability. 1 Name of Case: Williams v. Roffey Brothers Position: Defendant Case Brief This case involves two parties- Williams (Plaintiff) and Roffey Brothers & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd (Defendant). Roffey Brothers (1990) cannot be applied to this case since there is evidence of improper pressure on the part of Bob. However, the legal position was much softened by the seminal case of Williams v Roffey Bros … 3. Essay text: If both parties benefit from an agreement it is not necessary that each also suffers a detriment. OSCOLA Referencing williams v roffey bros and nicholls - how the laws changed ? 1 Facts: 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Roffey has contracted to Shepherds Bush Housing Association to renovate 27 flats in London. Where A and B are in and existing contract and A promises to give more to B this promise will be binding if A receives a practical benefit even though B is only doing what they promised to do under the original contract. Question: Examine the case of Williams v Roffey and Nicholls LTd. What can be concluded about the doctrine of consideration and the circumstances where the rule does not apply? OSCOLA Help! The plaintiff was a carpenter who agreed to carry out carpentry work in the refurbishment of the 27 flats for the defendant, which is a building contractor. Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls ? Overview. They subcontracted carpentry to Lester Williams for £20,000 payable in instalments. A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd  1 QB 1 . Explain the impacts of the decision in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. 1991 1 QB on the doctrine of consideration - Essay Example In order to critically asses the requirement of the proposition at hand, i.e. In such cases, in the absence of providing something extra, the law traditionally did not enforce such promises (Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317; Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 7 E & B 872). Mooting question please help Contract Moot problem Help ! Williams ran in financial difficulty and needed more money to continue the work. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Conclusion: Law Reports/1990/Volume 1 /Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd -  1 All ER 512  1 All ER 512 Williams v Roffey Bros and. Development of economic duress Contract Law Essay - Help show 10 more As a result, Bob’s use of improper pressure on Fred has overridden the mutual exchange of benefits and the outcome of this case will not be the same as the decision made in Williams v. Roffey Brothers (1990).