162:. Beer agreed that she would not take any action against Foakes for the amount owed if he would sign an agreement promising to pay an initial sum of £500 (£52,615.38 in 2012 adjusted for inflation) and pay £150 twice yearly until the whole amount was paid back. Foakes was in financial difficulty and, with the help of his solicitor, drew up an agreement for Beer to waive any interest on the amount owed. She signed. Foakes paid back the principal but not the interest. Then Beer sued Foakes for the interest. The question was whether she was entitled to it, despite their agreement that he would not need to pay it.
244:
where the debtor is perfectly solvent, and sure to pay at last, this often is so. Where the credit of the debtor is doubtful it must be more so. I had persuaded myself that there was no such long-continued action on this dictum as to render it improper in this House to reconsider the question. I had written my reasons for so thinking; but as they were not satisfactory to the other noble and learned Lords who heard the case, I do not now repeat them nor persist in them. I assent to the judgment proposed, though it is not that which I had originally thought proper.
30:
243:
made a mistake of fact is my conviction that all men of business, whether merchants or tradesmen, do every day recognise and act on the ground that prompt payment of a part of their demand may be more beneficial to them than it would be to insist on their rights and enforce payment of the whole. Even
183:
It is material to notice that by the agreement the debtor shall not bind himself to pay the creditor's nominee. That stipulation renders the document available as a security. Upon the authority of the decisions, I think there was abundant consideration for the
225:) upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal in favour of Beer. They reasoned that though the agreement did not contemplate the interest owed, it could still be implied given an enforceable agreement. However, the promise to pay a debt was deemed
302:
269:
385:
125:
40:
438:
142:(1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. In that case it was said that "payment of a lesser sum on the day cannot be any satisfaction of the whole."
443:
84:
368:
222:
99:
279:
232:
91:
129:
453:
448:
433:
218:
95:
324:
309:
428:
316:
229:
as there was no additional benefit moving from Foakes to Beer that was not already owed to her.
121:
338:
296:
117:
8:
214:
284:
364:
331:
176:
138:
133:
113:
132:. It established the rule that prevents parties from discharging an obligation by
68:
87:
29:
159:
422:
197:
instead held for Beer because there was no consideration for the agreement.
263:
179:
upheld this decision, given the agreement between the two. Mathew J said,
71:, All ER Rep 106, (1884) 9 App Cas 605; 54 LJQB 130; 51 LT 833; 33 WR 233
240:
235:, however, while not overtly dissenting, seemed to express reservations.
124:
in the context of part payments of debts. It is a leading case from the
198:
155:
151:
194:
202:
303:
Central London
Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
270:
Central London
Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
253:
Barely more than a restatement of the ancient rule in
277:had failed to pay cognisance to the 1877 case of
239:What principally weighs with me in thinking that
420:
158:, Julia Beer, a sum of £2,090 19s after a court
175:At trial, the court found in favour of Foakes.
205:concurred without giving considered opinions.
363:(4th ed.). LexisNexis. pp. 52–53.
28:
273:, on the basis that in 1884 the court in
361:Butterworths Student Companion Contract
421:
358:
283:, which had introduced the concept of
120:case, which applied the controversial
352:
13:
227:not to be sufficient consideration
188:
154:, Dr John Weston Foakes, owed the
14:
465:
208:
51:John Weston Foakes v Julia Beer
280:Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
170:
439:English enforceability case law
320:, a similar case in New Zealand
248:
193:On appeal, in a short judgment
444:English consideration case law
398:(1884) 9 App Cas 605, 622, 623
392:
377:
1:
411:J O'Sullivan, 'In Defence of
405:
389:1 Sm LC 8th Ed 357; 1 Str 426
7:
310:D&C Builders Ltd v Rees
290:
261:was effectively treated as
165:
10:
470:
325:Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd
359:Walker, Campbell (2004).
80:
75:
64:
56:
46:
36:
27:
20:
345:
317:HBF Dalgety Ltd v Morton
145:
128:on the legal concept of
246:
186:
122:pre-existing duty rule
60:31 March, 1 April 1884
237:
181:
114:[1884] UKHL 1
454:Lord Blackburn cases
449:House of Lords cases
383:making reference to
339:Collier v Wright Ltd
297:English contract law
267:by Lord Denning in
213:The House of Lords (
118:English contract law
434:1884 in British law
285:promissory estoppel
215:Earl of Selborne LC
332:Re Selectmove Ltd
177:Watkin Williams J
105:
104:
461:
429:1884 in case law
399:
396:
390:
381:
375:
374:
356:
134:part performance
85:Earl of Selborne
76:Court membership
32:
18:
17:
469:
468:
464:
463:
462:
460:
459:
458:
419:
418:
408:
403:
402:
397:
393:
382:
378:
371:
357:
353:
348:
293:
251:
223:Lord FitzGerald
211:
191:
189:Court of Appeal
173:
168:
148:
100:Lord FitzGerald
12:
11:
5:
467:
457:
456:
451:
446:
441:
436:
431:
417:
416:
413:Foakes v Beer'
407:
404:
401:
400:
391:
376:
369:
350:
349:
347:
344:
343:
342:
335:
328:
321:
313:
306:
299:
292:
289:
250:
247:
233:Lord Blackburn
210:
209:House of Lords
207:
190:
187:
172:
169:
167:
164:
147:
144:
126:House of Lords
103:
102:
92:Lord Blackburn
82:
81:Judges sitting
78:
77:
73:
72:
66:
62:
61:
58:
54:
53:
48:
47:Full case name
44:
43:
41:House of Lords
38:
34:
33:
25:
24:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
466:
455:
452:
450:
447:
445:
442:
440:
437:
435:
432:
430:
427:
426:
424:
414:
410:
409:
395:
388:
387:
386:Cumber v Wane
380:
372:
370:0-408-71770-X
366:
362:
355:
351:
341:
340:
336:
334:
333:
329:
327:
326:
322:
319:
318:
314:
312:
311:
307:
305:
304:
300:
298:
295:
294:
288:
286:
282:
281:
276:
272:
271:
266:
265:
260:
259:Foakes v Beer
256:
255:Pinnel's case
245:
242:
236:
234:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
206:
204:
200:
196:
185:
180:
178:
171:Queen's Bench
163:
161:
157:
153:
143:
141:
140:
139:Pinnel's Case
135:
131:
130:consideration
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
110:
109:Foakes v Beer
101:
97:
93:
89:
86:
83:
79:
74:
70:
67:
63:
59:
55:
52:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
31:
26:
23:
22:Foakes v Beer
19:
16:
412:
394:
384:
379:
360:
354:
337:
330:
323:
315:
308:
301:
278:
274:
268:
264:per incuriam
262:
258:
254:
252:
249:Significance
238:
231:
226:
212:
192:
182:
174:
149:
137:
136:, affirming
108:
107:
106:
50:
21:
15:
219:Lord Watson
96:Lord Watson
423:Categories
406:References
199:Lindley LJ
184:agreement.
156:respondent
241:Lord Coke
152:appellant
65:Citations
291:See also
195:Brett MR
166:Judgment
160:judgment
415:CLJ 219
57:Decided
367:
275:Foakes
203:Fry LJ
116:is an
69:UKHL 1
346:Notes
146:Facts
112:
37:Court
365:ISBN
221:and
201:and
150:The
98:and
425::
287:.
257:,
217:,
94:,
90:,
88:LC
373:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
