Facts: D & C Builders carried out work for Mr Rees and were owed £482 for that work. They chased Mr Rees for payment and finally Mr Rees’s wife, who knew that the builders faced financial difficulties, offered £300 in settlement of the debt stating that if that were not accepted nothing would be paid. The builders accepted and Mrs Rees provided them with a cheque and in return, at her request, the builders provided a receipt containing the words ‘received the sum of £300 from Mr Rees in completion of the account. ...’ The builders later sued for the balance. The court considered as a preliminary issue whether the claim was barred by reason of a settlement having been reached.
Mr Rees could not rely on promissory estoppel because of the pressure his wife placed on the builders to accept the lesser payment. In these circumstances it was not inequitable to allow the builders to go back on the promise to accept less since it had not been freely given. To allow the debtor to rely on the doctrine in such circumstances would be contrary to the equitable maxim that 'he who seeks equity must come with clean hands'.
Answer
D & C Builders Limited v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: D & C Builders carried out work for Mr Rees and were owed £482 for that work. They chased Mr Rees for payment and finally Mr Rees’s wife, who knew that the builders faced financial difficulties, offered £300 in settlement of the debt stating that if that were not accepted nothing would be paid. The builders accepted and Mrs Rees provided them with a cheque and in return, at her request, the builders provided a receipt containing the words ‘received the sum of £300 from Mr Rees in completion of the account. ...’ The builders later sued for the balance. The court considered as a preliminary issue whether the claim was barred by reason of a settlement having been reached.
Mr Rees could not rely on promissory estoppel because of the pressure his wife placed on the builders to accept the lesser payment. In these circumstances it was not inequitable to allow the builders to go back on the promise to accept less since it had not been freely given. To allow the debtor to rely on the doctrine in such circumstances would be contrary to the equitable maxim that 'he who seeks equity must come with clean hands'.
Answer
?
Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: D & C Builders carried out work for Mr Rees and were owed £482 for that work. They chased Mr Rees for payment and finally Mr Rees’s wife, who knew that the builders faced financial difficulties, offered £300 in settlement of the debt stating that if that were not accepted nothing would be paid. The builders accepted and Mrs Rees provided them with a cheque and in return, at her request, the builders provided a receipt containing the words ‘received the sum of £300 from Mr Rees in completion of the account. ...’ The builders later sued for the balance. The court considered as a preliminary issue whether the claim was barred by reason of a settlement having been reached.
Mr Rees could not rely on promissory estoppel because of the pressure his wife placed on the builders to accept the lesser payment. In these circumstances it was not inequitable to allow the builders to go back on the promise to accept less since it had not been freely given. To allow the debtor to rely on the doctrine in such circumstances would be contrary to the equitable maxim that 'he who seeks equity must come with clean hands'.
Answer
D & C Builders Limited v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it D & C Builders Limited v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
Facts: D & C Builders carried out work for Mr Rees and were owed £482 for that work. They chased Mr Rees for payment and finally Mr Rees’s wife, who knew that the builders faced fina
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.