With this motivation, the remaining crew returned the ship safely to London. of Queenslands, Law Journal , (University of Queensland Press, 2015), 301 - 317 The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. (law of contract), in between the rule in Foakes v. Beer and the rule in Williams v. Roffey. enforcing a promise, the courts are more concerned with fairness, reasonableness and commercial 14 Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls [1991] 1 Q. Request Permissions. Economic Duress or Practical Benefit - lawtutor.co.uk by how the decision of Williams v Roffey Bros (1991) 55 has influenced the courts in the There are three kinds of consideration, executory See Hobbs, 460 N.E.2d 287 (NCC barring former employee from practicing specialty in entire region imposed undue hardship). And if it were to be abolished would other doctrines such as intention to create legal relations and promissory estoppel be equally effective. 48 Michael Furmston, Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmstons Law of Contract , (16th edn, Oxford University Press, 2012) 6 The modification of ongoing contracts is a regular occurrence in both commercial The judge saw no reason to apply the principle in, where it was clear that parties had willing varied the contract with intention to be bound by it especially where it is in their best interest. Degree Assignment? The Supreme Court . amounted to consideration. Captain argued that the plaintiff (and other crew members) where under an existing obligation to work the ship back to London and they have done no more than that, the crew members had neither provide any valuable detriment nor loss to justify the extra wages claimed. Captain argued that the plaintiff (and other crew members) where under an existing obligation to work the ship back to London and they have done no more than that, the crew members had neither provide any valuable detriment nor loss to justify the extra wages claimed. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. The facts of this case were materially like that of Stilk v Myrick, although the one fact that distinguished the cases was that in Harris the ship was mid journey when the promise was made, and in Stilk the ship had reached its destination and was docked when the promisor (Myrick) made the promise. (John Wiley & Sons, 1990), 536 - 542 of New Brunswicks, Law Journal , (Gale, 2011), 131 - 146