Foakes v Beer
Foakes v Beer | |
---|---|
Court | House of Lords |
Full case name | John Weston Foakes v Julia Beer |
Decided | 31 March, 1 April 1884 |
Citation(s) | [1884] UKHL 1, [1881-85] All ER Rep 106, (1884) 9 App Cas 605; 54 LJQB 130; 51 LT 833; 33 WR 233 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Earl of Selborne LC, Lord Blackburn, Lord Watson and Lord FitzGerald |
Foakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1 is an
Facts
The
Judgment
Queen's Bench
At trial, the court found in favour of Foakes.
It is material to notice that by the agreement the debtor shall not bind himself to pay the creditor's nominee. That stipulation renders the document available as a security. Upon the authority of the decisions, I think there was abundant consideration for the agreement.
Court of Appeal
On appeal, in a short judgment
House of Lords
The House of Lords (
Lord Blackburn, however, while not overtly dissenting, seemed to express reservations.[3]
What principally weighs with me in thinking that
Pinnel's case] made a mistake of fact is my conviction that all men of business, whether merchants or tradesmen, do every day recognise and act on the ground that prompt payment of a part of their demand may be more beneficial to them than it would be to insist on their rights and enforce payment of the whole. Even where the debtor is perfectly solvent, and sure to pay at last, this often is so. Where the credit of the debtor is doubtful it must be more so. I had persuaded myself that there was no such long-continued action on this dictum as to render it improper in this House to reconsider the question. I had written my reasons for so thinking; but as they were not satisfactory to the other noble and learned Lords who heard the case, I do not now repeat them nor persist in them. I assent to the judgment proposed, though it is not that which I had originally thought proper.
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, 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, which had introduced the concept of promissory estoppel.
See also
- English contract law
- Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
- D&C Builders Ltd v Rees
- HBF Dalgety Ltd v Morton, a similar case in New Zealand
- Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd
- Re Selectmove Ltd
- Collier v Wright Ltd
Notes
- ISBN 0-408-71770-X.
- ^ making reference to Cumber v Wane 1 Sm LC 8th Ed 357; 1 Str 426
- ^ (1884) 9 App Cas 605, 622, 623
References
- J O'Sullivan, 'In Defence of Foakes v Beer' [1996] CLJ 219