Assignment

1 a)
The issue is whether there is a valid variation so that a new contact validly replaces the existing one. In this case Muldoon, who contracted with Bronson to provide 2000 t-shirts ran into financial difficulties as the supplier demanded 25% increase in the contract price due to collapse of the Malarian peso.
Muldoon agreed to the supplier’s demand only because Bronson agreed to pay him additional $7000 in order to ensure the supply of shirts in time. Later on Bronson refused to pay the additional amount due to concert not being that successful. In this case Muldoon went ahead with the contract and agreed to pay the supplier extra amount. As a result, Bronson derived a practical benefit of receiving the supply of shirts in time for the concert. Also, he avoided the hassle of looking for a new contractor. Similarly in the case Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls court held that because the plaintiff agreed to perform his existing obligations, the defendant avoided the trouble and expense of engaging another carpenter. Consequently, defendant secured a practical benefit. Therefore continuation was good consideration for their promise. So, applying the practical benefit test from Williams v Roffey in this case suggests that continuation of the contract by Muldoon was a good consideration for Bronson’s promise to pay him additional $7000 as Bronson derived a practical benefit. Therefore, Muldoon is entitled to claim the additional $7000 from Bronson.

b) The issue is whether Tony’s promise to pay Muldoon is supported by consideration or not. In this case there is an existing contract between Muldoon and Bronson in which Muldoon is supposed to deliver 2000 shirts to him. When Tony promised Muldoon an additional $500 to complete the existing contract, Bronson was acting as a third party. There was agreement and intention to enforce the contract