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 | [1881-85] All ER Rep 106; 9 App Cas 605; 54 LJQB 130; 51 LT 833; 33 WR 233 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Earl of Selborne LC, Lord Blackburn, Lord Watson and Lord FitzGerald |
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 is a controversial application of the Pre-existing Duty Rule and 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 performance, affirming Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. In that case it was said that "payment of a lessor sum on the day [i.e., on or after the due date of a money debt] cannot be any satisfaction of the whole."
Facts
The appellant, John Weston Foakes, owed the respondent, Julia Beer, a sum of £2,090 19s after a court judgment. Beer agreed that she would not take any action against Foakes for the amount owed if he would sign an agreement promising to pay an initial sum of £500 and pay £150 twice yearly until the whole amount was paid back. Foakes was in financial difficulty, and so Beer waived any interest on the amount owed.
Foakes made the payments as agreed without any interest. Beer sues Foakes for the interest.
Judgment
At trial, the court found in favour of Foakes, but was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal in favour of Beer.
The reasoning behind their judgment was that though the agreement did not contemplate the interest owed, it could still be implied given an enforceable agreement. However, the promise to pay a debt was deemed not to be sufficient consideration as there was no additional benefit moving from Foakes to Beer that was not already owed to her.