- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Hi,
On question 53 of the practice exam e.g.
‘January Asitristidis took over some city centre property with the intention of converting it into an art gallery….’
The question is, with specific reference to the contract with Varvara, identify whether the following statements are true or false:
‘Vavara is able to insist on the payment of the additional £1000 because Aristidis has recieved benefit by way of being able to open the gallery on time’-I put false for this was and just want to check my rationale, is it false because it was a promise to pay extra for doing existing work, so the only way this could have been true is if Varvara stipulated that they would be doing ‘extra work’ for ‘extra pay’ as opposed to ‘extra pay’ for ‘existing work’?
‘Artidis will be unable to avoid the additional payment of £1000 because Aristidis agreed at the end of February to the additional payment’-
I put True for this one and it was false, is this because against (as above) there is not mention of ‘promise to pay extra for extra work- the question suggests its existing work?
Without the benefit of having the complete question in front of me, it’s a little difficult to answer this!
Where an offer is made to make an additional payment over and above the original contract price, that additional amount would only be payable where the ‘customer’ were to receive an additional benefit beyond the original contract subject matter
I assume that Asitristidis / Aristidis / Artidis (select whichever one you feel is appropriate!) has contracted with Vavara / Varvara (again, your choice) for Varvara to do some work on the property in preparation for Aristidis opening the art gallery, the work to be completed in time for the intended opening (in March?)
Some time (in January?) Aristidis felt that it was appropriate to offer to pay Varvara an amount in addition to the contracted price in exchange for the Varvara work being completed on time.
In the absence of any indication of potential loss accruing to Aristidis which Varvara would prevent by finishing on time in accordance with the contract (so where it becomes apparent that time is of the essence and this was not previously indicated) then I believe that it would be unlikely that Varvara could enforce the additional payment
Does that clear it up for you?
Post again if you’re still in difficulties … but I would be more definitive in my response if you will let me have the full question!
🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.