A company argued that it had made a binding contract with the Inland Revenue to pay its tax by instalments. The Inland Revenue argued that this agreement was not binding on them because the company provided no consideration. The company was only purporting to do what it was already obliged to do. The company argued that the arrangement to pay in instalments provided 'practical benefit'. The C of A reiterated the position in Foakes v Beer. Williams v Roffey Bros .- if 'practical benefit' is provided, then that will amount to sufficient consideration for the enforcement of a new promise, even when there was an existing obligation to the same party. Rejected in Re Selectmove C of A suggested that the principle as it relates to 'practical benefit' does not apply to part payment of debts. It is only applicable as regards the provision of goods and services. MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2016] · Rock occupied a premises managed by MWB. . Rock decided to expand and entered into an agreement with MWB for larger premises for 12 months. · Rock's business was not as successful as hoped, so it incurred arrears of £12,000. · MWB gave notice purporting to terminate the agreement. . The parties then orally agreed another arrangement. . MWB subsequently changed its mind about the new arrangement and sued. . Key question was whether Rock provided consideration for the variation ... Composition agreement between several creditors of one debtor. Part Payment by a third party ? Hirachand Punamchand v Temple (1911) The principle in Foakes v Beer can be harsh, particularly if a debtor has relied on a promise by the creditor not to recover the remainder of the debt. However, the law remains that such promises will not be enforceable if no consideration is provided. >The exceptions are those outlined in Pinnel's Case and the other common law exceptions. Can a contract be varied in any other way without the provision of consideration? Yes. / } Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) ? Claimants were owners of a block of flats in London. · Rented it to defendants for £2,fl00 per annum. ? World War II - difficult for defendants to let the flats. ? Claimants agreed to reduce rent to £1,2f10 per annum. ? Even after the war in 194fl, defendants continued paying the reduced rent.
. After the war, Claimants sought to return to £2,fl00 per annum and recover the difference for last two quarters of 194fl. ? Heldft Claimants could revert to £2,f100 per annum, and they could recover the full rent from when the war ended, but could not recover for the war years.