Musumeci v Winadell considered the issue of contractual variation without additional consideration. After the decision in Williams v Roffey, it was considered that performance of existing contractual promises (and therefore legal obligations) did not fulfil meet the requirement of consideration.

Musumeci v Winadell however, allowed for the completion of existing obligations to become new consideration where the circumstances are so that performance of the original contract is more detrimental to one party than non-performance (factoring in remedies available to the other party).

Musumeci brought the case - I actually didn't read through the lower case judgements.

• Musumeci was a fruit and vegetable reseller
• Musimeci held a lease with Winadell Pty Ltd (Winadell) for a shopfront in their centre.
• A major competitor to Musumeci, also selling fresh produce entered the centre.
• The introduction of the competitor brought into question Musumeci's ability to cover their existinng rental obligations.
• Winadell promised to agree to a reduction to rent payable.
• Winadell attempted to back out of it's promise.

Had Musumeci given sufficient consideration in return for the promise to reduce rent?

Williams v Roffey (modifications to an existing agreement,whereby concessions are made by one party to ensure the other party maintains their existing obligations under contract, are unenforceable)

Consideration in these cases is effectively, not breaking the initial contract and limiting detriment to the remedies available to the the other party.

Where the agreement of a party to a contract, to change its terms,to ensure fulfilment of the existing obligations of another party. It is consideration enough, that the other party does not break the initial contract,if, the initial contract is more detrimental than breaking the agreement (considering all available remedies).

‍