contract law question

If M would not provide A the room since the incomplete refurbishment, it might be a discharge by frustration because P agreed the completion date was 1/4 and M only knew and anticipated the completion date was 1/4.

The additional payment was supplementary agreement. According to contract law, since the agreement had no consideration, it was not a legal binding contract, M needed not to pay the additional to P according to the supplementary.

However, according to the High Tree Case and precedents handled by Lord Denning (My memory is not good enough so I am not sure the above is true fact or not), the supplementary agreement was promissory estoppel. M and A agreed to pay, M and A had to pay.

The court would consider the above situation and precedents. But acoording to my limited memory, promissory estoppel seemed to be more advanced precedent's judgement and held at higher courts. Promissory estoppel might prevail.

Since A only contracted with M for booking room but did not contract with P for any, according privity of contract, A did not obligate for the contract regarding the refurbishment.

A agreed to pay $5K, it was not a supplementary agreement, it was a new agreement between A and P. The on time or in time completion of refurbishment was consideration or not was the most important test. It seemed the on time or in time completion was not consideration because all the things of the refurbishment was for M but A.

By equity, no matter whether M and A paid the additional payment or not, P obligated to complete the refurbishment. Whether it was fair that promissory estoppel was applied in the case was a significant question. By law, A seemed not to obligate for the additional payment. By morality, A seemed to obligate the payment.