is an English contract law case, which applied the controversial pre-existing duty rule in the context of part payments of debts. It is a leading case from the

House of Lords The House of Lords, also known as the House of Peers, is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Membership is by appointment, heredity or official function. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminste ...

on the legal concept of consideration. It established the rule that prevents parties from discharging an obligation by

part performance The Statute of Frauds (29 Car 2 c 3) (1677) was an Act of the Parliament of England. It required that certain types of contracts, wills, and grants, and assignment or surrender of leases or interest in real property must be in writing and sign ...

, affirming '' Pinnel's Case'' (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. In that case it was said that "payment of a lesser sum on the day .e., on or after the due date of a money debtcannot be any satisfaction of the whole."

Facts

The appellant, Dr John Weston Foakes, owed the respondent, Julia Beer, a sum of £2,090 19s after a court

judgment Judgement (or US spelling judgment) is also known as ''adjudication'', which means the evaluation of evidence to make a decision. Judgement is also the ability to make considered decisions. The term has at least five distinct uses. Aristotle s ...

. 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.

Judgment

Queen's Bench

At trial, the court found in favour of Foakes. Watkin Williams J upheld this decision, given the agreement between the two. Mathew J said,

Court of Appeal

On appeal, in a short judgment Brett MR instead held for Beer because there was no consideration for the agreement. Lindley LJ and

Fry LJ Sir Edward Fry, (4 November 1827 – 19 October 1918) was an English Lord Justice of Appeal (1883–1892) and an arbitrator on the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Biography Joseph Fry (1795-1879) and Mary Ann Swaine were his parents. He was ...

concurred without giving considered opinions.

House of Lords

The House of Lords ( Earl of Selborne LC, Lord Watson and

Lord FitzGerald John David FitzGerald, Baron FitzGerald, PC, PC (Ire) (1 May 1816 – 16 October 1889) was an Irish judge and Liberal politician. Background Born in Dublin, he was the son of the merchant David FitzGerald and his wife Catherine, eldest daug ...

) 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 ''not to be sufficient consideration'' as there was no additional benefit moving from Foakes to Beer that was not already owed to her. Lord Blackburn, however, while not overtly dissenting, seemed to express reservations.(1884) 9 App Cas 605, 622, 623

Significance

Barely more than a restatement of the ancient rule in ''Pinnel's case'', ''Foakes v Beer'' was effectively treated as '' per incuriam'' by Lord Denning in ''

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd ''Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd'' 947KB 130 is a famous English contract law decision in the High Court. It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in contract law in England and Wales. Howeve ...

'', on the basis that in 1884 the court in ''Foakes'' had failed to pay cognisance to the 1877 case of ''

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co ''Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co'' 877is a House of Lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the case of ''Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd'' in his development of t ...

'', which had introduced the concept of promissory estoppel.

Notes

{{reflist

References

*J O'Sullivan, 'In Defence of ''Foakes v Beer 996CLJ 219 1884 in case law 1884 in British law English enforceability case law English consideration case law House of Lords cases Lord Blackburn cases