Is foakes v Beer still good law?

The lower courts may well continue to distinguish this House of Lords decision and to carve out exceptions to the rule that promises to pay part of a debt are not good consideration while ostensibly leaving the rule intact in principle. Foakes v Beer might die, not through being overturned, but through neglect.

What is the rule in Pinnel’s case?

In debt recovery contract law, it is a general rule that an agreement that a debtor make a part payment of a debt will not satisfy the obligation to repay the entire debt.

Why is part payment not good consideration?

The general rule is that part-payment of a debt is never good consideration to discharge that debt. Exception: Part-payment of a debt is valid if something else is exchange along with/instead of money.

What was the rule in foakes v beer?

It established the rule that prevents parties from discharging an obligation by part performance, affirming Pinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. In that case it was said that “payment of a lesser sum on the day [i.e., on or after the due date of a money debt] cannot be any satisfaction of the whole.”

What was the facts of Foakes v Beer?

Facts: The respondent, Beer, loaned the appellant, Dr Foakes, £2090 19s. When he was unable to repay this loan she received a judgment in her favour to recover this amount.

What did Lord Blackburn say in Foakes v Beer case?

‘some independent benefit, actual of contingent, of a kind which might in law be a good and valuable consideration’. However, Lord Blackburn expressed some dissatisfaction with this, noting that by accepting less a creditor could in some cases gain a practical benefit.

How did Foakes get money back from beer?

Foakes did not repay the amount, and Beer brought an action against Foakes. They then entered into a repayment scheme where Beer agreed not to sue Foakes “in consideration” of an initial amount of £500 and then payments of £250 thereafter.

Is the principle of Foakes v Beer applicable to Roffey Bros and Nicholls?

Foakes v Beer was not even referred to in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, and it is in my judgment impossible, consistently with the doctrine of precedent, for this court to extend the principle of Williams’s case to any circumstances governed by the principle of Foakes v Beer.