Bertie who told her it was about a week's work and would cost 10,000. Amelia accepted Bertie's price and they further agreed that the work would be completed before 1 May so that Amelia could host a 21st birthday party at her house on 3 May for her daughter Camilla. Bertie began the work on 1 April but bad weather caused many delays. As a result Bertie said he would only be able to complete the job by 1 May if he employed extra workmen and this would increase his costs. Amelia offered to pay him 12,000 if he completed the job on time. Bertie went on to complete the repairs before 1 May and Amelia paid him 10,000 but refuses to pay any more. Advise Bertie. Answer: This particular question pertains to \"consideration" and we will examine the legal issues arising in this scenario to identify whether there is a valid consideration between Amelia and Bertie. Here we need to identify: 0 Whether an existing contractual duty will amount to a valid consideration? 0 Does extending beyond duty under contract amount to a valid consideration? 0 Was the contract frustrated clue to bad weather that caused a long delay in the performance of contract? The rst legal issue that arises here is that whether an existing contractual duty amounts to a valid consideration. As already established in Stflk v Myrick that if a party has an existing duty to act, this act cannot be used as consideration for a new promise. Keeping this in mind, Bertie was already in contract to complete the work in a week's time and Amelia is not obligated to pay him extra to complete the already contractual agreement as an existing contractual duty does not amount to valid consideration. However, there is an exception to this rule, which was witnessed in Williams v Roffey which established that a promise of a bonus is enforceable if the promisor is getting practical benefit and the promise was not given under duress. Looking at