Marcus Roberts

MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd: The Practical Benefit Doctrine Marches On

In MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd the Court of Appeal held that when an ongoing contract is varied so that one partys obligation to pay money is reduced, the variation is binding as long as the other party receives a practical benefit. In doing so, the Court of Appeal effectively confined the rule in Foakes v Beer to one-off payments. This raises serious questions about the continued survival of Foakes v Beer. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal ensured that Foakes v Beer would not be killed off via equity by moving away from the suggestion in Collier v P & M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd that an agreed part-payment of a debt by a debtor will always raise an estoppel preventing the creditor from demanding the remainder of the debt.

Variation contracts in Australia and New Zealand: whither consideration?

ABSTRACT When faced with unilateral contract variations, the lower courts in Australia and New Zealand have taken different paths regarding the requirement of consideration. In Australia, consideration is still required to be provided by the promisee, but what counts as consideration can include ‘practical benefits’. In New Zealand, the requirement for consideration for variation contracts has essentially been removed. This article will analyse both approaches. It will argue that the ‘practical benefit’ test for consideration is severely flawed, and that the removal of consideration as a requirement for variation contracts is also conceptually dangerous. A removal of consideration for one type of contract (variations) cannot be achieved without bringing it into question for all types of contracts. This article will argue (unfashionably perhaps) that there is still a place for consideration and that the pre-existing duty rule for variation contracts should be retained.

Equitable Estoppel in New Zealand: Wilson Parking New Zealand Ltd v Fanshawe 136 Ltd

Upon what basis should remedies be awarded in a case of equitable estoppel? What should the starting point be for such remedies: an award of equitable damages to compensate the plaintiff for its de...