First Round Problem (Moot of 2000/2001)
Rogers v. Ricardo
The House of Lords
Peter Rodgers is the owner of a block of flats. In May 1999 he entered into a contract with Luis Ricardo under which Mr Ricardo agreed to paint 10 flats in 10 days in return for a fee of £4,000, which was payable in advance. Mr Ricardo commenced work on time on Monday 10 May, as required by the contract. On the afternoon of Friday 14 May, as Mr Ricardo was leaving the site, he told Mr Rodgers that he would see him on Monday morning. Mr Rodgers asked why he was not coming in to work on Saturday. Mr Ricardo responded that he was not required by the terms of the contract to work at weekends and that he was looking forward to spending his weekend on the beach. Mr Rodgers pointed out that he had new tenants moving into the flats on Thursday 20 May. This made it vital that the work be completed by 6pm on Wednesday 19 May in order to give him time to make sure that the flats were ready for the new tenants. He also insisted that the terms of the contract expressly required Mr Ricardo to work at weekends. Mr Ricardo denied this but neither party could find a copy of the contract to resolve the dispute. A furious argument then broke out between the two. Mr Ricardo demanded an extra £1,000 before he would even consider working at the weekend. Mr Rodgers refused to pay, insisting that he would not be blackmailed. Eventually Mr Rodgers agreed to pay Mr Ricardo an extra £500 to work over the weekend and to complete the work by 6pm on Wednesday 19th. Mr Ricardo duly worked on both Saturday and Sunday and finished the work on time as agreed. Mr Ricardo then submitted a bill for the extra £500 but Mr Rodgers refused to pay it. Mr Rodgers has now found his copy of the contract and it states that "Saturday and Sunday shall both constitute working days for the purposes of this contract." Mr Ricardo sued to recover the extra £500 promised by Mr Rodgers.
At first instance, Pratt J held that Mr Ricardo was entitled to recover the £500 on the following grounds:
1. Mr Ricardo had provided consideration for the promise to pay the extra £500. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Williams v. Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1, Pratt J held that Mr Rodgers had obtained a practical benefit as a result of Mr Ricardo's specific promise to complete the work by Wednesday 19 May at 6pm.
2. The promise to pay the £500 had not been procured by the exercise of economic duress. Mr Ricardo had genuinely, albeit erroneously, believed that he was not required to work at the weekend. In the absence of bad faith on the part of Mr Ricardo, there was no basis for any conclusion that the promise to pay had been procured by the application of economic duress that was sufficient to set aside the promise to pay the £500: CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v. Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714 applied.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Rodgers' appeal. Mr Rodgers now appeals, with leave, to the House of Lords on the following grounds:
1. His promise to pay £500 was unsupported by consideration and the judge had erred in applying Williams v. Roffey Bros to the present facts. The Williams case was either distinguishable or, if it was not, should be overruled on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the decision of the House of Lords in Foakes v. Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605.
2. Even if consideration had been provided for the promise to pay the extra £500, nevertheless the promise should not be enforced because it had been made when Mr Rodgers had been subject to economic duress. Whether or not Mr Ricardo had acted in good faith was irrelevant since bad faith is not a requirement of economic duress where, as in the present case, the threat is one to break a contract.
« back