- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
- Posts
Dear Professor Little,
I did not understand the answer, conclusion(last) part from ‘Ami, Bry and Cis’
Can you please explain that part to me; why was Bry not entitled to have 1000 pounds?Peace be upon you
Thank you for your peaceful message – much appreciated. Unfortunately, at this time of year, peace is the last thing that I’m likely to enjoy!
🙂
And I’m not a professor, but I appreciate my elevation!
As for Ami, Bri and Cis ….. I need more detail. It looks from the question name that it’s a dissolved partnership but I do not have the question to hand and I don’t know it in my memory. Post again with some relevant detail
But this time, bring me back down to simply “Mike”
Dear Mike,
Here is the complete question:
In January 2010 Ami took over an old warehouse with the intention of opening an art gallery. As the warehouse had
to be converted, Ami entered into two contracts, one with Bry to do all the necessary plastering and one with Cis,
who was to do all the necessary painting. Both Bry and Cis were to be paid £5,000. Both received initial payments of
£1,000 and agreed to have the work completed on 31 March, as the art gallery had to be ready for its fi rst exhibition
on 1 May.
At the end of February, Bry told Ami that he would not complete the plastering in time unless she agreed to increase
his payment by a further £1,000. Ami agreed to pay the increased sum in order to ensure that the job was done on
time. She then thought it was only fair that she should increase the amount of money promised to Cis by the same
amount.
However, on completion of the work on time Ami refused to make either of the additional payments to Bry or Cis,
beyond the original contractual price.
Required:
Advise Bry and Cis whether they have any rights in law to enforce Ami’s promise to pay them an extra £1,000.Ask yourself this …”What has Bry given in exchange for the promise of the additional £1,000? If he had not known at the start of the contract that there was to be an exhibition and that time was of the essence then, upon finding out, he promised to put in the extra effort to complete on time, it could be claimed to be sufficiently similar to Williams v Roffey and he could be awarded the additional £1,000 because he would be saving Ami her lost profits caused by any delay.
However, in this particular question scenario, it seems that Bry knew from the start that there was to be an exhibition “received initial payments of £1,000 and agreed to have the work completed on 31 March, as the art gallery had to be ready for its first exhibition on 1 May”
So what additional consideration has Bry supplied? None! Therefore there is no supplementary contract ( not supported by consideration ) and therefore no cause for action
OK?
- The topic ‘Question 32 from BBP Kit 2013 (Past paper June 2010)’ is closed to new replies.