Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Complete 11 pages APA formatted article: Extra Payment of 1000 Pounds. According to Collins2, the law of contract seeks to achieve justice in the market and will, therefore, be regulated more by the e
Complete 11 pages APA formatted article: Extra Payment of 1000 Pounds. According to Collins2, the law of contract seeks to achieve justice in the market and will, therefore, be regulated more by the element of the fairness of a transaction rather than the freedom of the parties to enter into any terms they like.
Therefore, in assessing the transaction, the Courts will examine whether it is fair to both parties, and in this case, despite Phoenix having paid up the extra 1000 pounds, the transaction is not fair to it, nor does the demand for extra payment after contracting to satisfy the reasonable expectations of honest businessmen. In the case of DeLassale v Guildford3, a contract was signed but an additional oral assurance on condition of drains was sought. When the drains were later found defective, the Court held that the defendant was liable since the consideration covered in the contract also included satisfying the oral assurance on drain condition. Therefore, applying this criterion, it appears that the original contract between Phoenix and Seats R Us contains the complete consideration to be paid for the services and therefore an existing contractual duty is to be performed without expectations of extra consideration.
For example, in the case of Stilk v, Myrick4 a ship’s crew was not entitled to extra payment since their services were already compensated through consideration spelled out in the contract. Therefore, on this basis, it appears that Seats R Us cannot demand extra payment for services that are already covered through the consideration spelled out in the contract. In the case of Williams v, Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd5 the defendants hired the Plaintiffs as subcontractors but later offered them extra consideration to complete the work on time. In this case, the Court held that the defendant was bound to pay the extra consideration they had offered. .
