Similarly, in CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v. Gallaher Ltd, the court ruled that the practical benefit accruing to the promisor constituted consideration for the additional payment.2 Moreover, in the Central London Property Trust Ltd V. High Trees House Ltd, The tenants relied upon the principle of estoppel against the landlord and prevented him from enhancing the rent.3
Furthermore, in Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v. Tungsten Electric Co Ltd, the Law Lords ruled that the promise was binding during the period of suspension, and that after furnishing reasonable notice, the owners could receive the compensation payments.4
In our case, the Idyllic Hotels Limited stood to realise a considerable profit, if the work were to be completed in time. At the same time, if there was any delay in the construction, the room bookings would have been cancelled, leading to considerable loss to Idyllic Hotels Limited. This practical benefit constitutes the consideration for extra payment.
Exclusion clauses fall under the purview of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms of the Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 renders businesses liable for violation or circumvention of statutory obligations, in the normal course of business.
In Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking the court held that the exclusion clause was not applicable, since the exemption clause had not been included in the contract. Hence, the company was held liable for the personal injury caused due to its negligence.5
In Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd, the latter’s attempt to evade liability by resorting to an exclusion clause was disallowed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the defendants were liable for any damage caused by fire, due to their negligence.6
The Vitus Equipment Hire Ltd had provided a defective ladder to Urban. The outcome