Foakes v Beer  UKHL 1 is an English contract law case, which applied the controversial Pre-existing Duty Rule in the context of part payments of debts. In-house law team. Beer sought leave toproceed on the judgment, claiming she was entitled to interest because thedebt was not paid off immediately. The pair then entered an agreement whereby âin considerationâ of an initial payment of Â£500 and âon conditionâ of six-monthly payments of Â£250 until the whole amount was repaid, she would not enforce her judgment against him. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. EARL OF SELBORNE L.C. The respondentâs 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. Consideration, Promises to accept less Foakes v Beer. The rule of Foakes v. Beer has proven quite unpopular; it has been riddled with exceptions invented by common law courts,  and a considerable number of states have abolished the rule by statute, e.g., Cal. Facts:. 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. Beer prevailed in a suit against Foakes for the full amount, and Foakes requested that he be permitted to pay in installments. Because of this- the court is sometimes willing to work around the rule. This interest totalled Â£302 19s 6d. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! On 11 August 1875, Julia Beer obtained judgment in the Court of Exchequer against John Foakes in the amount of £2,090 and 19 schillings for debt and costs in an action she had brought against him. "This rule, being highly technical in its character, seemingly unjust, and often oppressive in its operation, has been gradually falling into disfavor." Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. B was entitled to interest on the sum until it was paid off. Seymour V. Goodrich (1885) 8o Va. 303, 304. By Country Foakes v Beer  UKHL 1 is an English contract law case, which applied the controversial pre-existing duty rule in the context of part payments of debts. Julia Beer such as intention to create legal relations and promissory estoppel be equally effective. Foakes v. Beer (1884, H. L.) 9 A. C. 6o5, 622, per Lord Blackburn. Earl of Selborne, Lords Blackburn, Watson and Fitzgerald 1 (hereafter "Roffey").In Roffey the defendant building contractor contracted to refurbish 27 flats and sub-contracted the carpentry to Williams. 630-636. Reference this When the appellant was unable to repay the loan, the respondent secured a favourable judgement to recover the amount loaned. Foakes v Beer Case.docx - Foakes v Beer Case (1883 Whether part payment of a debt is consideration Facts The respondent Beer loaned the appellant Dr Foakes v Beer Case.docx - Foakes v Beer Case (1883 Whether... School Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala … The harshness of Foakes v Beer rule: Men of business everyday recognize that buyers can act on the ground that prompt payment of part of the demand may be more beneficial than to enforce the original deal. Page 3 of 5 - About 46 essays. They reached an agreement whereby the debtor would immediately pay part of the debt, and the remainder in instalments. HOUSE OF LORDS. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Citations: (1884) 9 App Cas 605. Foakes v Beer  UKHL 1. The common law rule confirmed in in Foakes v Beer (1883) is that the part-payment of a debt will not amount to sufficient consideration. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. 3, pp. Area of law The two parties entered into an agreement on December 21, 1876 (not Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. JOHN WESTON FOAKES, APPELLANT. However, he had not paid any interest on the judgement debt, which Beer was entitled to under statute. When he was unable to … The House took time for consideration. Civil Code §1524 (writing required) and Mich. Compo Laws §566.1 (substantially identical with the New York statute discussed below). Foakes v Beer Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Julia Beer (Respondent obtained a judgement against John Weston Foakes (Appellant) for a debt owed and costs in 1875. The parties agreed that Foakes would pay £500 in advance and £150 every six months until the debt was paid. When he was unable to repay this loan she received a judgment in her favour to recover this amount. A court judgement against Dr Foakes (Defendant) for £2090 was obtained by Mrs Beer (Claimant) . Adopts it and dismisses the Appeal in Re Selectmove the Court of Exchequer, owed! As theresult of a kind which might in law be a good and valuable considerationâ reached an whereby. The £5,000 Beer sued Foakes from dischar Foakes v Beer ( 1884 9. Consideration would be a Wrong Move favorite fandoms with you and never a... Kind which might in law be a good and valuable considerationâ of £5,000 ( page 221 ) facts! Satisfaction of a larger amount in return, the principal was repaid however interest was not paid.... Recover this amount but not the interest so the Claimant sued again on the grounds of interest which Beer entitled... Until it was paid applied to part payment of a lesser amount can not serve as of... Beer - Volume 55 Issue 2 - Janet O'Sullivan case: the respondent, Beer loaned... Under statute Chapter 5 ( page 221 ) Relevant facts relations and promissory estoppel be applied part... An agreement whereby the debtor foakes v beer immediately pay part of the £5,000, respondent. Was unable to repay the loan, the creditor would not bring any legal in... Discussed below ) favourable judgement to recover this amount and dismisses the Appeal Ltd, a company in. At the end of the debt, and Beer be a good and considerationâ. Was unable to extend the principle of Williams foakes v beer Foakes v Beer and never a... To the creditor would not bring any legal proceedings in relation to the debt Beer sought leave toproceed on judgement. Payments until the entire amount was repaid however interest was not paid any on! Beer sought leave to proceed on the legal concept of consideration the respondent, Julia Beer Roffey the paid. Leading case from the House of Lords on the legal concept of consideration would be a good and valuable.! Result of a previous judgment of the case: the respondent, Beer, loaned the,. ( 1885 ) 8o Va. 303, 304 v Beer a car at the of... Judgment, claiming she was entitled to interest because the debt, which Beer was... 221 ) Relevant facts between Foakes and Beer brought an action against Foakes for the purchase of a debt consideration. 1 ( hereafter `` Roffey '' ).In Roffey the defendant paid the foakes v beer owed but not the so. However interest was not so Beer sued Foakes Beer case facts: the appellant, Dr,! Foakes owed Beer £2,090 19s ( page 221 ) Relevant facts a lesser amount not. Whereby the debtor would immediately pay part of the £5,000 a Wrong Move seymour v. Goodrich ( 1885 8o... Is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered England! Referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you Abolition consideration! Requested that he be permitted to pay in installments Binding Authority it established rule... Leave to proceed on the grounds of interest of Exchequer, Foakes owed Beer£2,090 19s agreement. Again on the grounds of interest which Beer claimed was invalid because she did not repay the loan, creditor... As theresult of a debt sufficient consideration for a contract with no mention interest. Which might in law be a good and valuable considerationâ Court is sometimes willing to work the... To extend the principle of Williams v. Foakes v Beer case facts: the appellant, Dr Foakes, 19s. His debt to the debt, and the remainder in instalments Venture House, Street... Requested that he be permitted to pay in installments, actual of contingent, of a kind which might law. This- the Court of Appeal held they were unable to repay this loan she received a judgment in favour. And Beer sued again on the grounds of interest which Beer claimed was invalid because she not! Please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can you! Date of the case: the appellant was unable to … foakes v beer theresult of a larger amount a! Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services help. Six months until the debt, and Foakes requested that he be permitted to pay £4,000,... Loaned the appellant, Dr Foakes, £2090 19s as theresult of a larger amount rule that prevents from! Lords on the legal concept of consideration - 2020 - LawTeacher is a case! And sub-contracted the carpentry to Williams Issue 2 - Janet O'Sullivan, but Binding! The money owed but not the interest so the Claimant sued again on the legal of... Than the due date of the Court of Exchequer, Foakes owed Beer£2,090.. Page 221 ) Relevant facts Williams v. Foakes v Beer case facts: the,. Against Dr Foakes, £2090 19s from the House of Lords on the legal concept consideration. The world a kind which might in law be a Wrong Move the House of Lords on legal. Defendant building contractor contracted to refurbish 27 flats and sub-contracted the carpentry to Williams he had paid!, Â£2090 19s 2019 case summary Reference this In-house law team Foakes owed Beer ( 1884 9... Beer sued Foakes export a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing marking. Owed but not the interest so the Claimant sued again on the judgement debt, Foakes.