Question (a)
Mr Bingham and FCS Ltd. Clearly have a contract among them. The promise from FCS ltd. was to complete the work assigned on the 4th of January 2013 and Bingham agreed to pay 400,000 pound for the work done. So both promise and consideration have been made and identified and every other change would result in breach of contract. Igor Bingham is not obliged to pay the extra 100,000 pounds to FCS Ltd. for them to finish the construction on time unless he wants to, because the latter have agreed upon finishing the work in 3 months at a pay of 400,000 pounds under a sealed contract so it is their breach of contract that comes into question. Furthermore FCS Ltd. have agreed to this period of construction based on their experience on duration of such a construction, which in business is known as a critical path analysis. This is a method that helps businesses assess how long each task of a project will take. We do not have enough information in order to claim that FCS have used this tool when they signed the contract with Igor Bingham. The case also does not state FCS Ltd.’s cause/causes for the delay. It could be that some of their workers have become sick due to a local contagious illness, which is something they could not control and so Igor would have less of a successful claim, should he sue the constructors for the delay. On the other side, if more information was given in the case, it could have been assessed whether Igor would have a successful claim against FCS Ltd. for their breach of contract that has then caused him to breach his contracts with the rock band and Monaghan & Co. It could then end in FCS Ltd. having to pay for its breach of contract with Igor and the compensation Igor could claim for the costs he had incurred for breaching his other contracts as fault of FCS Ltd. However, Igor’s concerns arise due to the contracts he has already signed with the celebrity rock band and the events management firm, Monaghan & Co., whom Igor has hired for the gallery’s official opening on the 5th of January. By a simple mathematical calculation it can be deducted that had Igor delayed or cancelled the launch of his gallery, it would be at a cost of at least 100,000 pounds, resulted from hiring the rock band for a sum of 60,000 pounds and the events management company for a sum of 40,000. This suggests that even if Igor had not paid the extra money for the completion of the construction, he would still have to pay just as much to the band and event management company. Furthermore, he would be at the risk of being sued by the above mentioned parties, had he requested that they delay the event. These parties might have already incurred costs which could possibly not be refundable to them, and that again could lead to them requesting a higher pay from Igor.
By demanding more money in order to deliver the work on time signifies breach of the terms of contract. The general rule for an existing duty says that ‘Promises to pay more for performance of an existing duty are not enforceable.’ So according to this Mr Bingham is not obliged to pay the extra sum of money. However the exception says that if there is a practical benefit in paying more than the existing duty than it does not signify that there has been a breach of contract
In light of all I have said above I can say that Igor Bingham is not obliged to pay any extra amount of money to the constructing company, however he will do so for a personal and practical benefit. By doing this action he is not committing any breach of contract

Question (b)
Performing a legal duty which is already owed under a contract does not constitute consideration, unless that duty is unclear or honestly disputed. When a party agrees to do something under a contract, the party cannot change the terms without consideration and expect the new terms to be enforceable. This is expressed as the legal duty rule, and it occurs in one of three different ways: Paying more, paying less or