Assignment Report for Jason Miao v Damien
Hoe Chau Wei Joel
STUDENT ID: 31625455
Bachelor of Commerce Bridging
Table of Contents
1.0. Case Question 1 2 of 6
2.0. Case Question 2 4 of 6
3.0. Reference List 6 of 6
1.0. Case Question 1.
Advise Jason Miao whether he can go back on his promise of paying the extra $5,000.
The legal issue in this question is whether Jason Miao has the obligation to go back on the promised additional $5000 payment to Damien, the contractor to construct a swimming pool on the ground next to his garden.
In the case of Currie v Misa(1875), Consideration is defined as some form of profits, benefits or value-adding from one part to the other party. The general principal of law related to this issue is that having to do, or contribute in more than when one was originally contracted to do is sufficient consideration.
The case law authority for this particular principle for establishing the case is Hartley v Ponsonby(1857). The court has deemed that the remaining sailors were to put in more efforts due to the shortening of manpower on board and that was good consideration. Likewise for the case in question, Damien had to put in more effort than he is first contracted to, hence the additional payment of the $5,000 must be paid to Damien. The principal of the case was also enforced in the case of Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (1991) where the Williams was contracted to do carpentry work for the Roffey brothers who wanted to renovate a block of flats. William was able to sue the Roffey brothers successfully for the work done as they obtained some form of “practical benefits” from the work done and the brothers chose to forgo the breached in the first place. Applying this rule to our case, the “practical benefits” received by Jason Miao is that Damien has completed the pool which meets the conditions set by the...