[1] The concept of economic duress provided an answer to Stilk's old problem, that an agreement to perform an existing legal duty cannot constitute good consideration for a new contract.

On Stilk v Myrick, Glidewell LJ said, It is not in my view surprising that a principle enunciated in relation to the rigours of seafaring life during the Napoleonic wars should be subjected during the succeeding 180 years to a process of refinement and limitation in its application to the present day.However, the principle had not in fact been subjected to any refinement and the three cases he relied on for this proposition - Ward, Williams v Williams and Pao On - unanimously applied it by finding legal consideration (without which the post-contractual modifications would not have been upheld).

[3] Russell LJ, giving his own interpretation in the plaintiff's favour held: The courts nowadays should be more ready to find [consideration’s] existence so as to reflect the intention of the parties to the contract where the bargaining powers are not unequal.

He noted that Roffey Bros' employee, Mr Cottrell had felt the original price to be less than reasonable, and there was a further need to replace the 'haphazard method of payment by a more formalised scheme' of money per flat.

In Re Selectmove Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 8 the Court of Appeal considered Williams v Roffey Bros and decided that the principle should not be extended to part payment of debts.