Alex owns and runs a business that specialises in the supply of luxury sailing boats to wealthy customers.

He entered into two separate contracts with Joseph, a boat builder.

The first contract was for the renovation and re-fitting of 'Sea Crest'. The written agreement provided that Joseph would complete all the work within 26 weeks of the date that he commenced work. The agreed price for the work on 'Sea Crest' was 50,000.

The second contract was for the renovation and refitting of 'The Serpent'. The written agreement provided that Joseph would complete all the work within 26 weeks of the date that he commenced work. The agreed price for the work on 'The Serpent' was 50,000.

Six weeks after Joseph commenced work, Alex entered into a contract with Stephanie for the

sale of 'Sea Crest'.

That contract provided that Alex should deliver 'Sea Crest' to Stephanie within 20 weeks of

the date of their agreement. The contract also provided that Alex should pay Stephanie

1,000 for each and every week that he was late in delivering the vessel to her.

Ten weeks after Joseph commenced work, it became clear to Alex that Joseph was not working sufficiently quickly to complete the work by the agreed date. Alex therefore offered to pay Joseph an extra 10,000 for each of the two vessels that Joseph completed within the time originally agreed.

Joseph consequently worked more quickly. He completed the work on each of the vessels within 26 weeks from the date he started work on the contract in question. Alex is now refusing to pay Joseph the extra 10,000 that he promised for completing work on 'Sea Crest' on time. He is also refusing to pay Joseph the extra 10,000 that he promised for completing work on 'The Serpent' on time.

Advise Joseph as to whether Alex's promise to pay an extra 10,000 to Joseph is legally

enforceable with reference to both of the contracts between them.