2 0 obj This interest totalled £302 19s 6d.The respondent’s case was that the promise not to enforce the judgement was not supported by good consideration because the appellant had only done what he was already contractually bound to do. The current crisis throws the unsatisfactory state of the law into sharp relief.Nick and Patrick review the development of the different lines of authority and focus on the Court of Appeal’s approach to “If you would like to discuss any of the issues covered in this article please contact We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. <> The extension of practical benefit to agreements to accept less undermines Foakes, and so the law remains uncertain. No mention was made in this agreement of interest although …
Secondly, the Court of Appeal in MWB v Rock held that a practical benefit constituted consideration for part payment of a debt. THE RULE IN FOAKES V BEER AND THE RULE IN WILLIAMS V ROFFEY DILAN THAMPAPILLAI∗ Since the decision of the UK Court of Appeal in Williams v Roffey there has been a great deal of academic debate about contract modifications and the validity of viewing a ‘practical benefit’ as sufficient consideration for a fresh promise.
As theresult of a previous judgment of the Court of Exchequer, Foakes owed Beer£2,090 19s. For almost four hundred years (since Pinnel's Case3 ) English law has been clear: the payment of, or promise to pay, a smaller sum than 3 0 obj
%���� The current crisis throws the unsatisfactory state of the law into sharp relief.Nick and Patrick review the development of the different lines of authority and focus on the Court of Appeal’s approach to “If you would like to discuss any of the issues covered in this article please contact We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391.
�Ρ !�0��� �?2��(P) ��hv4�0��n��FGapA�F�à���a�5���\�{����ښһf�R�d̺5[q��k�̴'�-$����Q��X��;PzJ[&t{�ق)�ށJ|(e�P`2�R�B]�@�l�`��m�W�a��A�D�xg�p��(�Q5��R> ��Y{��;&�~��4�+�Gt�g��)�y���O�*�_�v��#&�m�okG���4�%Y��58!4��Mo)Z9堊�`Qb�( LJ�_`� �����q5�M4���n��,�A�����dV�,��� �=����� y��W��crŽ�]��Y���Q��:&�:�9`�����{���ɟ��|t�O�՞�j�2�*�M�� �;m���iڢ'}�@f��� O�n��[(I¤�T�(Ç��$j;4�Jʹ�4��r�E� �X��o����;}�����;�d��P��C����儲}�u�� ��5��z�^�+�d���{�� Nick and Patrick review the development of the different lines of authority and focus on the Court of Appeal’s approach to “
The pair then entered an agreement whereby ‘in consideration’ of an initial payment of £500 and ‘on condition’ of six-monthly payments of £250 until the whole amount was repaid, she would not enforce her judgment against him. IN DEFENCE OF FOAKES v. BEER JANET O'SULLIVAN* I. Dr Foakes offered to pay £500 immediately and the rest by instalments, Mrs Beer agreed to this and agreed she would not seek enforcement of the payment provided he kept up the instalments. From what I understand, in MWB the decision was effectively where practical benefit can be found it can amount to consideration for a creditors agreement for a revised payment schedule.
Company Registration No: 4964706. 1 0 obj For a number of decades, the focus of the analysis has largely been on extending practical benefit to part-payment cases and curtailing the effect of Foakes v Beer .
%PDF-1.5 Foakes v Beer is authority for precisely the opposite proposition; that part payment of a debt provides no consideration capable of binding a creditor to their promise to waive the remainder. Foakes v Beer (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605 House of Lords Dr Foakes owed Mrs Beer £2,000 after she had obtained judgment against him in an earlier case.
endobj endobj endobj The long-standing question of whether a promise to make part payment of an existing debt amounts to good consideration for a creditor’s promise to accept a lesser sum in full settlement of that debt reveals a pressure point in the law. INTRODUCTION THIS paper aims to defend what many academic commentators' regard 2 as indefensible-the rule in Foakes v. Beer. Whether part payment of a debt is consideration.
x���mO�0��G�w���$\?�Ʉ�J)Ѝ�ъ�@{���T��uaӾ���uJ�T�����绿���.��$W����VU>�-nຳ_VU9���}(:�tv�W��3|�Q��aYV�bo�z�? When he was unable to repay this loan she received a judgment in her favour to recover this amount. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ.
VAT Registration No: 842417633. <>/ExtGState<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/Annots[ 15 0 R 18 0 R 19 0 R] /MediaBox[ 0 0 594.96 842.04] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> If you continue to use our website, we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies.
Lord Blackburn in Foakes v Beer It is well known that a creditor may accept less than their strict legal rights from a debtor and still be allowed to later demand the rest of the sum owed.
I have read a lot of articles on this, and a lot of people argue that it effectively undermines Foakes V Beer and the Selectmove (sp?)
However, he had not paid any interest on the judgement debt, which Beer was entitled to under statute.
If you continue to use our website, we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies.
Kitchin LJ thus adopted the language and approach of the Court in Williams. Foakes made these regular payments until the entire amount was repaid. They consider when and why the law does, and does not, recognise that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. Facts: The respondent, Beer, loaned the appellant, Dr Foakes, £2090 19s. This particular rule originates from the seventeenth century in the Court of Common Pleas and Pinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co. Rep. 117a. The respondent relied on the rule in The House of Lords held that the respondent’s promise not to enforce the judgment was not binding as Dr Foakes had not provided any consideration. IN DEFENCE OF FOAKES v. BEER JANET O SULLIVAN* I.