Foakes V Beer Case Study

Although these two cases respectively concern part payment of a debt and promissory estoppel, they are always discussed together. Generally speaking, I have found many similarity which they shared, especially when unpaid rent is boldly considered as a form of debt. In Foakes v. Beer, Dr Foakes was liable to pay the interest. The agreement was reached which stated that it was not good consideration to pay off the existing debts. It is also stressed in this case that when someone promised nothing more than he or she was already legally bound to do, no consideration was provided. I personally found this argument very persuasive and it makes good sense. Furthermore, the decision in this case is clearly still binding, therefore the notion of it …show more content…
“Things someone was already legally bound to do”, as the exact words in Foakes v Beer’ s case, could also be applied here. I believe that it is sensible to argue that paying the rent is something which people are supposed to do originally and also an existing responsibility raising from the former contract. It is clear that the High Tree’s case did not follow the previous binding precedent. It is reasonable to believe that the decision is made based on the subsequent development of contract law, and promissory complement the doctrine of consideration. Then does it mean the judgement was wrong in the previous case? With respect to relevant cases in time order, we should admit that most of confusion and inconsistency is because of the doctrine of precedent. Ever since the Pinnel’s case has laid down the part payment of a debt rule, it is widely-known in English Contract Law that promise to pay a less sum that the original amount cannot discharge the debt. In Williams v. Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, the Court of Appeal brought forward the concept of “practical benefit”, which can provide consideration for a promise to pay more, then why should it not apply to a promise to accept less? Some commentary on Foakes v Beer urged an extension to the rule of Roffey’s case should be made, while some believed that accepting less and providing more are not direct mirror imagine with each