FACTS: Mrs Beer had obtained a judgment against Dr Foakes for £2,090. Dr Foakes requested time to pay and the parties agreed in writing that, if Dr Foakes paid £500 at once and the balance by instalments, Mrs Beer would not 'take any proceedings whatever on the judgment'. The agreement made no reference to the question of interest although by virtue of the Judgments Act 1838, all judgment debts carry interest until paid. Dr Foakes ultimately paid the whole amount of the judgment debt itself and Mrs Beer then claimed the accrued interest. Dr Foakes refused to pay on the basis of the written agreement while Mrs Beer claimed that the agreement was unsupported by consideration. HELD by the House of Lords: Judgment was given in favour of Mrs Beer. This was a naked attempt to usurp the rule in Pinnel's Case and the Earl of Selborne LC pointed out that the House would 'not do right' to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal which was based on a doctrine that had been accepted as part of the law of England for 280 years.
Answer
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
FACTS: Mrs Beer had obtained a judgment against Dr Foakes for £2,090. Dr Foakes requested time to pay and the parties agreed in writing that, if Dr Foakes paid £500 at once and the balance by instalments, Mrs Beer would not 'take any proceedings whatever on the judgment'. The agreement made no reference to the question of interest although by virtue of the Judgments Act 1838, all judgment debts carry interest until paid. Dr Foakes ultimately paid the whole amount of the judgment debt itself and Mrs Beer then claimed the accrued interest. Dr Foakes refused to pay on the basis of the written agreement while Mrs Beer claimed that the agreement was unsupported by consideration. HELD by the House of Lords: Judgment was given in favour of Mrs Beer. This was a naked attempt to usurp the rule in Pinnel's Case and the Earl of Selborne LC pointed out that the House would 'not do right' to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal which was based on a doctrine that had been accepted as part of the law of England for 280 years.
Answer
?
Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
FACTS: Mrs Beer had obtained a judgment against Dr Foakes for £2,090. Dr Foakes requested time to pay and the parties agreed in writing that, if Dr Foakes paid £500 at once and the balance by instalments, Mrs Beer would not 'take any proceedings whatever on the judgment'. The agreement made no reference to the question of interest although by virtue of the Judgments Act 1838, all judgment debts carry interest until paid. Dr Foakes ultimately paid the whole amount of the judgment debt itself and Mrs Beer then claimed the accrued interest. Dr Foakes refused to pay on the basis of the written agreement while Mrs Beer claimed that the agreement was unsupported by consideration. HELD by the House of Lords: Judgment was given in favour of Mrs Beer. This was a naked attempt to usurp the rule in Pinnel's Case and the Earl of Selborne LC pointed out that the House would 'not do right' to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal which was based on a doctrine that had been accepted as part of the law of England for 280 years.
Answer
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
FACTS: Mrs Beer had obtained a judgment against Dr Foakes for £2,090. Dr Foakes requested time to pay and the parties agreed in writing that, if Dr Foakes paid £500 at once and the balan
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.