x enters into a contract with y x refurbishes y's flats for a price of 5million y is unable to pay the full amount on the due day and only pays 3 million x promises to accept this in the full settlement because they need the money in order to start the contract with z otherwise penalty clause will be imposed x now claims the remaining 2 million

y appeals to the Supreme Court on the following ground: 1) Following the principles established in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1, the payment of a lesser amount can be sufficient consideration if that payment creates a benefit

QUESTION? Is it appropriate to apply the 'Glidewell criteria', developed in Williams v Roffey, to this appeal? Explain your reasoning.