A court judgement against Dr Foakes (Defendant) for £2090 was obtained by Mrs Beer (Claimant) . 219-228 Printed in Great Britain SHORTER ARTICLES IN DEFENCE OF FOAKES v. BEER JANET O'SULLIVAN* I. JOHN WESTON FOAKES, APPELLANT. Case Analysis : Building Contractors 2107 Words | 9 Pages. Whether part payment of a debt is consideration. Facts. Foakes v Beer; Foakes v Beer. RESPONDENT : Julia Beer. The reason behind this position is to prevent the exploitation of parties in poor financial positions, as shown here: Party A owes Party B £1,000, but is aware Party B is in dire financial need of £500. King's Law Journal: Vol. Facts: The respondent, Beer, loaned the appellant, Dr Foakes, £2090 19s. 16 May 1884. In Foakes v Beer  UKHL 1 Lord Blackburn quoting Lord Coke in Littlejohn Co. Litt. (2008). A debtor was struggling to pay his debt to the creditor. Foakes v Beer UKHL 1, All ER Rep 106, (1884) 9 App Cas 605; 54 LJQB 130; 51 LT 833; 33 WR 233. According to the Judgments Act 1888, a judgment debt bore interest of 4% p.a. Beer promises that she would not take any legal charge upon Foakes if he signed the agreement to pay the principal amount with interest. They reached an agreement whereby the debtor would immediately pay part of the debt, and the remainder in instalments. Facts. Foakes v Beer  UKHL 1. Cas. Foakes v Beer. The rule in Foakes v Beer states that an agreement to vary a contract by accepting less is not binding unless the promisor agrees to accept less and receives something extra of value in the eyes of the law. The House took time for consideration. Foakes v Beer relied purely on the common law and did not take into account equitable principles, such as promissory estoppel INTRODUCTION THIS paper aims to defend what many academic commentators' regard as indefensible-the rule in Foakes v. Beer.2 For almost four hundred years â¦ 605;(1884) 9 App Cas 605 Foakes, owed Julia Beer, a sum of £2,090 19s after a court judgment . . larly made; the case not being one of a composition with a common debtor, agreed to, inter se, by several creditors. As such, the rule in Pinnelâs case was reiterated by the House of Lords in Foakes v Beer. Page 4 of 5 - About 46 essays. May 16. Foakes v Beer House of Lords. In this case the defendants were building contractors whom were contracted through a housing association to refurbish a block of flats in London. APPELLANT : Dr John Weston Foakes. . Foakes v Beer â Case Summary. For almost four hundred years (since Pinnel's Case ) English law has been clear: the payment of, or promise to pay, a smaller sum than the amount due does not discharge the debt, since the debtor â¦ 344-353. Arden LJ held that Foakes v Beer applied, but referring to the âbrilliant dictumâ of Denning J in High Trees, held that promissory estoppel could aid Mr Collier. 9 App. :â My Lords, upon the construction of the agreement of the 21st of December 1876, I cannot differ from the conclusion in which both the Courts â¦ Following Foakes v Beer, this promise is not enforceable, and Party B can demand the remaining £1,000 despite promising not to. Cambridge Law Journal. 29, No. 630-636. BENCH : Earl of Selborne LC, Lord Blackburn, Lord Watson and Lord FitzGerald. 5 For example, as early as 1937, the Law Revision Committee recommended departing from Foakes v Beer owing to the commercial benefits a creditor may â¦ Foakes v Beer and Promissory Estoppel: A Step Too Far. from the date of judgment. However, the decision in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway was not taken in to consideration in Foakes v. Beer ruling. B was entitled to interest on the sum until it was paid off. 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. Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 Chapter 5 (page 221) Relevant facts . Seymour V. â¦ Julia Beer, 1884). Pattern II: exemplifies Foakes v. Beer. They are not trying to enforce a promise at this â¦ 212 b the Court said: [W]here the condition is for payment of £20, the obligor or feoffor cannot at the time appointed pay a lesser sum in satisfaction of the whole, because it is apparent that a lesser sum of money cannot be a satisfaction of a â¦ 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. Where he had been assured that he could repay only part of the debt, he had relied on the assurance by making his payments, Wright Ltd resiling from the promise âwould of â¦ In . While some academics have criticised the reasoning in Williams v Roffey , 4 the overwhelming majority has regarded Foakes v Beer to be commercially indefensible. Pursuant to the then applicable legislation, Beer was also 3, pp. Foakes v Beer: Bloodied, Bowed, but Still Binding Authority? It is a leading case from the House of Lords on the legal concept of consideration. The rule has stood the test of time for over one hundred years. Foakes v Beer  UKHL 1 (1883-84) L.R. In other words, then, Denning in Central London Property v High Trees argued that the Judicature Acts had been ignored in Foakes v Beer i.e. EARL OF SELBORNE L.C. Foakes v. Beer (1884, H. L.) 9 A. C. 6o5, 622, per Lord Blackburn. Mrs Beer had obtained judgment against Dr Foakes for andpound;2,090 19s. Written and â¦ Civil Code §1524 (writing required) and Mich. Compo Laws §566.1 (substantially identical with the New York â¦ 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. It is a leading case from the House of Lords on the legal concept of consideration.It established the rule that prevents parties from discharging an obligation by part â¦ FOAKES v. BEER. Foakes v beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 Issues 1- Whether there was a valid agreement between the parties John and Julia 2- Whther the respondent entitled to the amount given by the appellant Facts The appellant, John Weston Foakes, owed the respondent, Julia beer, a sum of $2,090 19s after a court judgment.