write a speech for moot court in the house of lords for the case below, Henrietta Hurley, a film star, wanted a summer house and a swimming pool constructed in her back garden. She put the job out to tender and accepted the offer of Geraldine Grant, a building contractor, who agreed to do the work for 5,000. Both Geraldine and Henrietta knew that this was an unrealistically low price. Geraldine, having completed the summer house and begun construction of the swimming pool ran out of money and materials for the job. Geraldine told Henrietta that she could not complete the job unless further capital was made available to her. Henrietta, who had arranged a poolside party to which she had invited top film directors from which she hoped to win new roles, was desperate to have the pool completed. She tells Geraldine, "Dahling, you have me over a barrel." Henrietta agreed to lend Geraldine 3,000 in order to buy the materials necessary to ensure that the pool was completed, the money to be repaid when Geraldine secured her next contract. The pool was completed; the party was a success and Henrietta was awarded the starring role in the new movie "Four Funerals and a Car Drive." Henrietta tells Geraldine, "Dahling, you have saved my career. Don't worry about the 3,000." Geraldine starts a new project, whereas Henrietta's new film is a complete flop. Henrietta sues Geraldine for the 3,000 on either of two grounds: (i) As an ordinary debt; (ii) The money was extorted by duress. Divine J. held: (i) The rule in Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co. Rep 117, was modified by Williams v. Roffey Brothers [1990] 2 WLR 1153, and therefore the completion of Henrietta's pool was capable of constituting and constitutes a benefit in fact which was sufficient consideration for Henrietta's payment of the extra 3,000. (ii) Further, Henrietta's promise to pay 3,000 was not procured by Geraldine's economic duress, because although Geraldine exerted illegitimate pressure by threatening to break her contract, Henrietta's will was not overborne by Geraldine's behaviour. Pao On v. Lau Yiu [1980] AC 614 applied.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Divine J. Henrietta now appeals to the House of Lords on two grounds: (i) Divine J. erred in law in holding that Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co. Rep 117, had been modified by Williams v. Roffey Brothers [1990] 2 WLR 1153 (ii) It is not a necessary ingredient in an action for the recovery of money paid under economic duress that the payor's will was overborne.

can you also refer to this skeleton argument given below? IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS CASE OR CLAIM NO: [08022024] BETWEEN: Henrietta Hurley [" The Appellant"] and Geraldine Grant [The Defendant"] Skeleton Argument for The Appellant 1.Introduction: This appeal challenges the decisions of Divine J. and the Court of Appeal, seeking a reconsideration of the modification of the rule in Pinnel's Case and the determination of economic duress. The Appellant urges the House of Lords to clarify the legal implications of these issues. 2. The Issues: The primary issues in dispute relates to the modification of Pinnel's Case and the finding of economic duress. The Appellant contends that the initial unrealistic price, knowingly agreed upon, should not have led to a modification of the established rule. 3. The Facts: Key facts supporting the appellant's case include the knowingly agreed-upon unrealistic price, the desperate situation of Henrietta to complete the pool for her career, and Geraldine's threat to break the contract. 4. The Law: The key legal points include the rule in Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co. Rep 117, modification by Williams v. Roffey Brothers [1990] 2 WLR 1153, and the application of economic duress as per Pao On v. Lau Yiu [1980] AC 614. Other cases referred are: North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd, Stilk v. Myrick and Maskel v Horner. 5. Submissions: a. Economic Duress: - The appellant contends that the payment was made under economic duress, as evidenced by Geraldine's threat to break the contract and Henrietta's desperate situation. - Referring to North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd and another, the circumstances, including the cessation of work and strong verbal protests, indicate that the payment was involuntary, satisfying the conditions of economic duress. - Lord Reading C.J. in Maskel v Horner did not prescribe express words of protest as always necessary, emphasizing that circumstances as a whole must indicate the payments were involuntary. This aligns with the present scenario. b. As an Ordinary Debt: - The appellant argues that there is no substantial consideration for the new agreement, as the money given was in return for completing the existing obligation of building the pool. - Citing Stilk v. Myrick, the appellant asserts that a promise to fulfil an existing contractual duty is not good consideration. 6. Conclusion: The appellant seeks a reconsideration of the modification of Pinnel's Case and a review of the finding on economic duress, urging the House of Lords to clarify the legal principles in this context. Dhruvi Bavishi [Senior Counsel] Ratik Dhillon [Junior Counsel]