m (Reverted edits by 130.63.183.230 (talk | block) to last version by TheIrreverend) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
==Facts== |
==Facts== |
||
| − | As the result of a previous judgment of the Court of Exchequer, Foakes owed Beer £2,090 19s. |
+ | As the result of a previous judgment of the Court of Exchequer, Foakes owed Beer £2,090 19s. The two parties entered into an agreement on December 21, 1876 (not under seal) that Foakes would pay £500 immediately and £150 every 6 months until he had paid off the debt and in return Beer wouldn't take any action. By June of 1882, Foakes has paid off the entire principal and sought leave to proceed on the judgment. Beer claimed she was entitled to interest because the debt was not paid off immediately. Foakes claimed there was a contract with no mention of interest which Beer claimed was invalid because she did not receive any consideration. |
==Issue== |
==Issue== |
||
#Is partial payment of a debt sufficient consideration for the contract made between the two? |
#Is partial payment of a debt sufficient consideration for the contract made between the two? |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Appeal dismissed with costs, interest payment due. |
Appeal dismissed with costs, interest payment due. |
||
==Reasons== |
==Reasons== |
||
| − | Selborne, writing for the court, held that as the agreement was not under seal the defendant was not bound unless there was consideration. |
+ | Selborne, writing for the court, held that as the agreement was not under seal the defendant was not bound unless there was consideration. He refers to ''Pinnel's Case''and the doctrine |
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | |||
While he acknowledges that this doctrine has been criticized it has not been overruled and therefore somewhat hesitantly adopts it and dismisses the appeal. |
While he acknowledges that this doctrine has been criticized it has not been overruled and therefore somewhat hesitantly adopts it and dismisses the appeal. |
||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
==Ratio== |
==Ratio== |
||
Payment of a lesser amount cannot serve as satisfaction of a larger amount. |
Payment of a lesser amount cannot serve as satisfaction of a larger amount. |
||
Revision as of 12:28, 2 November 2012
Facts
As the result of a previous judgment of the Court of Exchequer, Foakes owed Beer £2,090 19s. The two parties entered into an agreement on December 21, 1876 (not under seal) that Foakes would pay £500 immediately and £150 every 6 months until he had paid off the debt and in return Beer wouldn't take any action. By June of 1882, Foakes has paid off the entire principal and sought leave to proceed on the judgment. Beer claimed she was entitled to interest because the debt was not paid off immediately. Foakes claimed there was a contract with no mention of interest which Beer claimed was invalid because she did not receive any consideration.
Issue
- Is partial payment of a debt sufficient consideration for the contract made between the two?
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs, interest payment due.
Reasons
Selborne, writing for the court, held that as the agreement was not under seal the defendant was not bound unless there was consideration. He refers to Pinnel's Caseand the doctrine
"that payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it appears to the Judges, that by no possibility a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum"
While he acknowledges that this doctrine has been criticized it has not been overruled and therefore somewhat hesitantly adopts it and dismisses the appeal.
Ratio
Payment of a lesser amount cannot serve as satisfaction of a larger amount.