FLK1 · Multiple-choice practice
FLK1 Contract Law — Question 5
Try this question in the test bank →Question
Fiona wanted to carry out some building work in her holiday cottage to provide extra training facilities for her horses. She decided to build a large, fenced area for them to run in. Fiona entered into a contract with Granger Ltd to build the training facilities for £20,000. The contract provided for completion of the work by 1st March. When work commenced on the training facilities, Granger encountered a network of pipes immediate under the surface, which need to be diverted. Granger demanded an extra £5,000 to cover their increased costs. Fiona could not find any other builder with the expertise to complete the contract on time and so agreed to pay the extra charge, without protest, so that the grounds would be completed on time for the horses to start training in the spring. On completion of the training facilities on 1st March Fiona refused to pay Granger any more than £20,000. Should Fiona:
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. Pay Granger £25,000 as the promise to pay extra was supported by consideration
Pay Granger £25,000 as the promise to pay extra was supported by consideration. This is because it is likely that the promise to pay extra is additional payment for additional work carried out. Here we do not need to consider practical benefit (see Williams v Roffey) which would apply if changes in performance were by one party only. Also, it is not likely that the promise to pay extra was procured by duress, therefore B is a less likely answer. Equally, on the facts presented, it is unlikely that the contract was frustrated, which makes C and D the wrong answer. Promissory estoppel (D) is not relevant as the claimant (Granger) cannot use it to demand payment.
Original newsletter explanation ↗Continue in the test bank for scoring, feedback, progress tracking and timed mini mocks.
More FLK1 Contract Law questions →