Gloria Jean’s Coffees v Daboko

Rosas v Toca

In Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd 1 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom sought to bring commercial certainty to the question of the legal effect of no oral modification clauses. However, the other “truly fundamental issue”2 facing the Court was ducked: namely, what is the law relating to consideration for variation agreements? Thanks to its decision on no oral modification clauses, the Court did not need to explore the apparent inconsistency between the part-payment of debt rule in Foakes v Beer 3 and the practical benefit test for consideration for variation agreements in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.4 The Supreme Court went no further than pouring some rhetorical cold water on the Court of Appeal’s decision5 that the practical benefit test could be utilised in cases like Foakes v Beer. This has left some “uncertainty”6 in this area of contract law in the United Kingdom which remains to be cleared.7 How far does the decision in Williams v Roffey extend? Is the full rigour of the pre-existing duty rule for variation agreements still good law?