{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02171664943123061, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009307135470527405, 'mean_word_length': 5.165605095541402, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Contract Modifications—Reflections on Two Commonwealth Cases

The pre-existing duty rule is said to have done the most in giving the doctrine of consideration a bad name.1 It stands for the orthodoxy that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty is no consideration,2 but sits uneasily with other aspects of the consideration doctrine,3 and is routinely circumvented through a number of ‘avoidance techniques’.4 Since the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd,5 the rule appears to have been all but emaciated, prompting not only calls for the abolition of consideration in the context of contract modifications,6 but also in the more general context of contract formation.7 Indeed, two Commonwealth cases, namely, Antons Trawling Co Ltd v Smith8 and NAV Canada v Greater Frederiction Airport Authority Inc,9 have since taken a definitive step in that direction by holding that a promise to pay more for