Question 2 In this situation there are several legal issues.

The first being if Brendan can retrieve the excess funds promised from Anna to hire extra staff at 25,000, to do this he must prove that this promise was a legally binding contract. The next issue would be if Brendan can claim the extra 10,000 in bonuses promised by Annas husband was also legally binding. The next issue is if Anna is liable to pay 3,000 to Dupe Ltd, in this case she must be able to prove that a legitimate contract was made between Dupe Ltd and herself to only pay 7000 of the previously stipulated 10,000. There is relevant law to consider when looking at these issues. The first issue regarding the extra 25000 to be paid to Brendan involves the law regarding the modification of a contract, agreement, certainty, intention to create legal relations and consideration all must be in place. The only controversial point is consideration in this case as all of the other aspects are evidentially present. The fact that Brendan simply done the task asked of him does not amount to consideration, this is portrayed in the case of Stilk v Myrick (1809). Williams v Roffey (1857) brings an exception that Brendan could use to claim the 25000. Williams v Roffey dictates that an agreement is binding if the promisor to pay the bonus has thereby obtained some new practical advantage or avoided a disadvantage. (http://a-level-law.com/contract/agreement/consideration_cases.htm accessed 23/11/2010) This could certainly be seen to be argued in Brendans case. Even if no consideration is found to exist, Brendan can still prove Annas promise to be legally binding, with the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the cases of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) outline promissory estoppel and if in Brendans case all the conditions of promissory estoppel are there he could claim the promise is binding and thus claim the 25000. The second issue on the subject of Brendan receiving 10,000 in bonuses promised by Annas husband is one in which Brendan doesnt have a lot of law to fight his case. There are cases to completely dismiss any case Brendan has against Annas husband, Thomas v Thomas (1842) and White v Bluett (1853) outline that consideration must be of economic value. He cannot apply promissory estoppel either as there was no pre-contractual relationship between him and Annas husband. The third issue concerning Annas liability to pay 3000 to Dupe Ltd is most closely linked with Pinnels case (1602) this case outlines as Elliot and Quinn (7th edition) explains, If a debtor offers to pay a reduced sum back to the lender in full and final settlement and the lender agrees to accept it, this agreement will only be binding if the debtor provides some extra element that can be treated as consideration The extra element in Annas case could be the early payment of the revalued debt, which as shown in Pinnels case would provide new consideration. Brendan needs to prove that Annas modification of his contract is enforceable. The first case to apply would be the differences between Stilk v Myrick (1809) and Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) regarding the completion of performance and the promise of extra funds. The contrast of these two cases shown that the mere completion of a task is not

ample consideration, there must be something extra in a case to provide this consideration, such as in the Hartley case in which completion of performance was more dangerous. I dont believe Brendan could argue this case as the previously stated performance was done, with no extra hazard or obstruction. As it therefore would be difficult to show orthodox consideration, another approach should be assumed. The next would be to show that Anna gained added benefit from granting Brendan the extra 25000 on completion of the work. This approach would be best shown with the case of Williams v Roffey. Many comparisons can be drawn between Brendans case and this one. The first being that in both cases it was clear that the work would not be completed by the stipulated date. The next and most important is that both Anna and Roffey gained benefit from paying extra money to their respective workers. In Roffeys case he gained benefit as by giving Williams extra money to avoid a late completion clause and in Annas case she gained benefit as by providing extra funds to Brendan the rooms were ready for the profitable summer trade. However there are some important points missing between the two cases, Anna gained no extra benefit in how the performance was to be completed unlike in the Williams case in which his contract was modified to complete one room at a time, there is no mention of this in Brendans case. Also in the Williams case it was agreed that the original price of the job was too law, and thus it could be seen that further consideration was provided for extra funds from Roffey, again there is no mention of this in Brendans case. A court could only find practical benefit in Annas case from the idea that the hotel would be refurbished for the profitable summer trading, which is certainly a realistic outcome. The next approach Brendan could pursue to show Annas promise as enforceable, is to show promissory estoppel should apply. (http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com /Promissory+Estoppel accessed 25/11/2010) states that Promissory Estoppel provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present. In the law of contracts, the doctrine that provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present. This sums up Brendans case well, if he can prove the conditions of promissory estoppel exist. The first being that a pre-contractual relationship existed, this is obviously present. The next being Brendan must show an obvious promise was made, again this is present. He must also prove that he relied on this promise, this may be more difficult. In the question it states the extra money was to hire more staff however it is not clear if he did or not, more information is required in this area. The next thing he would need to prove is that it would be inequitable to rely on his strict legal rights, this again would need more information regarding if he did or did not hire extra staff. If he did hire extra staff it would be clear it was inequitable as in his case as there were no penalties to completing the work, he would not have hired extra staff, he would have just completed the work late at no extra cost to himself. If all these were proved by Brendan, the only other reason promissory estoppel could be applied would be why the work was completed late, this was shown in the case of D&C Builders v Rees, in this case promissory estoppel was not

applied as the reason for late completion was bad behavior. Brendan would need to prove the reasons behind his late completion to the courts, and if they are just and all other conditions are fulfilled this could be applied. In the situation between Brendan and Annas Husband, Brendan has no case for several reasons. The first one is that he cannot argue consideration on Annas husbands case as the cases of Thomas v Thomas and White v Bluett conclude that consideration must be of economic value. The reasoning behind the promise of Annas husbands payment to Brendan was to ease his wifes stress, as this is not of economic value. Brendan also cannot apply promissory estoppel, although no consideration is needed, there was no precontractual relationship between Brendan and Annas husband, thus one of the conditions of promissory estoppel is not fulfilled, and it cannot be applied. In the next situation it can be argued Anna has a case. This issue falls under contractual duties to pay debts and in contract law, debts can be settled at less than the original sum, if as Elliot and Quinn (7th Edition) states the debtor provides some consideration for it by adding some extra element. In Annas case the extra element was the early payment of the loan. Early repayment can certainly be considered as an extra element as the courts have ruled in Pinnels case (1602) in which Pinnel gave fresh consideration by paying the debt, not st full but early under agreement with the lender, the same as in Annas case. She would have a strong case to only pay 7000. In advising the parties, I would advise Brendan to pursue his case concerning Anna on the grounds that she gained extra benefit from completing the work on time and thus consideration was present to provide Brendan with extra funds. He could also try and apply promissory estoppel if it was clear he used the extra money in some way to speed up the work process, as the question suggests by hiring extra staff. I dont believe he has a case against Annas husband in the acquisition of the promised 10,000 as a bonus, as it is clear there was no consideration of economic value or pre-contractual relationship, I would advise him not to take this to court. I would advise Anna to argue that she provided an extra element in paying the loan early, which would amount to consideration for Dupe Ltd, reinforced by Pinnels case.