Ferris Digital Ltd has promised its client that a new booking platform will go live on 1 September, and it faces heavy penalties if it is late. Its subcontractor, Lomax, has underpriced the coding work and warns that it may not be able to finish. To secure completion and avoid having to find a replacement, Ferris promises Lomax an extra £30,000 to deliver on time. Lomax delivers on time, but Ferris refuses to pay the extra. Lomax applied no improper pressure. What is the most likely outcome?

Correct answer: C) Lomax can recover the £30,000 because Ferris obtained a practical benefit from the promise

Explanation

Under Williams v Roffey Bros, performing an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor can be good consideration for a promise of extra payment. This applies where the promisor obtains a practical benefit and the promise was not extracted by fraud or economic duress. Ferris avoided the client's penalties and the cost and disruption of finding a replacement, so the promise of £30,000 is enforceable. The strict rule in Stilk v Myrick is therefore displaced on these facts, and no deed is needed.