Legal Case Summary
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1
Summary: Whether performance of an existing duty can amount to consideration.
Facts of Williams v Roffey Bros
The appellants Roffey Bros, were builders who were contracted to refurbish 27 flats belonging to a housing corporation. The contract had a penalty clause for late completion. The appellants subcontracted some work to Williams, a carpenter. When Williams fell behind with his work the appellants offered him bonus payment to finish on time. Williams carried on working until the payments stopped. He sued the appellants for breach of contract.
Issues in Williams v Roffey Bros
The appellants argued that the agreement to pay extra was unenforceable as Williams had provided no consideration; the appellants only received the practical benefit of avoiding the penalty clause. They did not receive any benefit in law. Williams was only agreeing to do what he was already bound to do. The appellants relied on Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 where it was held that performance of an existing duty was not good consideration.
Decision / Outcome of Williams v Roffey Bros
The Court of Appeal held that the doctrine in Stilk v Myrick had been refined since then. Gildwell LJ said a promise to make bonus payments to complete work on time was enforceable if the promisor obtained a practical benefit and the promise was not given under duress of by fraud. It was the appellants’ own idea to offer the extra payment. Therefore, there was no duress. The appellants also gained a practical benefit by avoiding the penalty clause. Russel LJ said (at 19) that the court would take ‘a pragmatic approach to the true relationship between the parties’.
Consequently, the promise for extra pay was enforceable.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 remains broadly accurate as a statement of the Court of Appeal’s decision and its refinement of Stilk v Myrick (1809).
Students should be aware of some important ongoing legal context. The practical benefit doctrine established in Williams v Roffey Bros applies to contracts for the supply of goods or services but does not straightforwardly extend to promises to accept part payment of a debt in full satisfaction — the House of Lords confirmed in Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474 that Foakes v Beer (1884) remains good law in that context, and that the Court of Appeal could not extend Williams v Roffey to payment of debts. This distinction is important for students studying consideration more broadly.
The relationship between practical benefit as consideration and the doctrine of promissory estoppel also continues to be debated academically and in the courts. No subsequent Supreme Court decision has overruled or significantly altered the Williams v Roffey principle itself, so the case remains good law as described. However, its precise scope and limits continue to be the subject of judicial and academic discussion, and students should read it alongside Re Selectmove and the broader consideration case law.
