Nick vs John
This case involves an analysis of sufficiency of consideration regarding the performance of an existing contractual duty. There is no dispute with regard to the initial contract between the two parties; the key issue here is whether John can claim the bonus of $1000 from Nick.

Provided the consideration has ‘something of value in the eye of the law’ to support the bargain, the courts will not concern themselves with its adequacy and the relative values exchanged. Therefore, it can be argued that if a party does, or promises to do something, which he is already bound to do, he then provides no consideration for the promise. In Stilk v Myrick, two sailors deserted during a voyage, the master promising to apportion the deserters’ wages amongst the remaining sailors if they would sail the ship home safely. The courts held that the claim for additional wages must fail since no consideration had been provided in performing the existing contractual obligation which was to get the ship home. On this basis, it can be argued that John has performed no more than his contractual duty and Consequently;, he has no sufficient consideration for the bonus money.

However, a more recent “refinement and limitation” to the rule in Stilk made In Williams v Roffey Bro & Nicholls(Contractors) Ltd , has fundamentally altered our perception of the doctrine of consideration. In this case, the defendant was a firm of builders contracted to refurbish blocks of flats, the carpentry being subcontracted to the plaintiff that encountered financial difficulties and fell behind schedule. As a result, the defendant was supposed to pay damages under the contract and, accordingly, it offered the plaintiff additional amounts to finish the work on time. However, on the completion of the work the defendant refused to pay, claiming that the new agreement was void for lack of