Williams v Roffey Bros: Getting Paid More for the Same Work
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июн 2020
- Imagine if your boss promises to pays you extra money for your work, then he breaks his promise and tells you, "too bad, no consideration".
~
To check out all my videos, comics, and blog posts explaining law in simple terms, check out my website at whatislaweven.com ^^
Art by the amazing Xiao Tong! Please feel free to check her stuff out here:
/ xiaotongt
~
FULL FACTS: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN WILLIAMS V ROFFEY
The money was to be paid in instalments, and Williams actually ran out of money quite early on. Then, the variation agreement was made, but Williams never finished the work, because Roffey Bros refused to pay beyond a certain point. Williams then sued for all the outstanding instalments. Doesn't change the legal analysis; this one's more for the law students with the unfortunate fate of having to trudge through this case.
NOTE: ON "ECONOMIC DURESS"
Now, if you're thinking, "Can't I just threaten to stop working if my boss doesn't give me a raise?" First of all, if enough people do that, it's probably called a labour strike; more pertinently though, even if you managed to convince your boss to give you a raise in this situation, the court might say that your contract was procured out of "economic duress"--that is, "illegitimate economic pressure". A threat to breach a contract is a pretty established category of economic duress, and the inducement or procuring of a breach of contract may give rise to a cause of action in tort.
Omg I have been a stuck here for the past 30 minutes trying understand this damn case under contract renegotiation and didn’t know anything but this helped so much thank youuuuu
This is great! I understand the case without replaying the video (which is something I always needed to do in other videos). Thank you for doing this!
Massive thanks for the creative drawings and clear narration of the case!
Thank you! finally i can understand this case better now
Big help, thank you.
Great video thanks so much!
Thank you for that explanation! I understand it now
so helpful! thank you so much!
Brilliant! Thank you.
Really good explanation, I understand it now! Keep the good work coming. New subscriber :)
Humbled to hear, thank you for the kind comment! :)
"A deal is a deal." 😊 Shame on Roffey for trying to weasel out of the deal they made.
wow, excellent explanation
Such an amusing and engaging video! :D
Really helpful!
Truly fascinating! Is the consideration concept used for decisions in the U.S.? It has a lot of interesting implications.
I would assume so, consideration it an integral aspect to contract law, as a contract without consideration is known as 'nundum pactum', or a 'naked agreement'. This means that the contract is thus unenforceble. Without consideration a contract cannot be enforced, so I have no idea why America wouldn't have this or a similar concept employed in their contractual laws.
love ur voice
Dude don't be Brat
😂😂 Never knew CoA could say that