• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

contract law

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Law Q. What is the present position of practical benefit keeping the following cases in mind: 1) Pinnel's Case (1602) 2) Foakes v Beer (1884) 3) Williams v Roffey (1990) 4) Re Selectmove Ltd (1995) 1) Pinnel's Case (1602): The general rule is that if a creditor promises to discharge a debt in return for a fraction of the payment, in paying the agreed fraction, the promisee is not providing consideration for the promise, as this is merely part performance of a contractual duty already owed. Consequently, the debtor is still liable for the whole amount, as he cannot force the promissor to accept less. This is true unless the debtor provided fresh consideration for the promise. Where there was the introduction of some new element in the transaction, (at the creditor's request), then the court said it would be prepared to hold the creditor to his promise. ...read more.

Middle

The practical benefits to the creditor would be the immediate receipt of payment and the saving of time, effort and expense. Whenever a creditor and a debtor reach an agreement on the payment of the debt by installments, the creditor will always see a practical benefit for himself in agreeing. However, this practical benefit, expressly considered in Foakes v Beer, was held not to constitute good consideration in law. 3) Williams v Roffey (1990): Williams v Roffey is a significant decision because it weakens the requirement of consideration in the context of contract modification, thus giving effect to commercial realities and the intentions of the parties. In the case, the Court of Appeal was in favour of the plaintiffs and the oral agreement made was enforceable. All three judges indicated that it was good law and that a gratuitous promise would fail for lack of consideration: just as in Stilk v Myrick (1809), the new agreement imposed no additional detriment above that of the original contract on the plaintiffs. ...read more.

Conclusion

In that case, it was held that the doctrine only applies where the original promise was a promise to pay extra and not to pay less. It should be noted, however, that the Court of Appeal in Re Selectmove were unable to distinguish Foakes v Beer (a House of Lords decision), in order to apply Williams v Roffey (Court of Appeal). It therefore remains to be seen whether the House of Lords would decide this point differently. In any event, the equitable principle of promissory estoppel may provide the debtor with relief. The Court of Appeal failed to acknowledge that its decision in Williams v Roffey was incompatible with the decision of the House of Lords in Foakes v Beer. Instead of harmonising these two lines of cases, the Court of Appeal in Re Selectmove Ltd restricted the application of the practical benefits analysis to the context of contract modification relating to only the supply of goods and services. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Analysis of Performance - Badminton.

    After two or three weeks increase the intensity and push yourself a little bit more. The Perfect Model The perfect model is the ideal execution of the skill in question. It's the perfect way the skill is carried out which includes the set, the execution and the recovery.

  2. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    with s20 GBH He raised the defence of insanity Prosecution argued that M'Naughten required a disease of the mind Judge said it is a disease of the person, not just mind Not guilty by reason of insanity R v Sullivan (1984)

  1. In the context of the theoretical proposition on the issue of law and morality, ...

    In Rights of Terminally Ill Act 1995(NT), ads were portrayed to indicate euthanasia as a kind act to people who are suffering on the brink of death, creating widespread support.10 However the notion of patients suffering extreme pain is contrary to findings that illustrate that patients' main reasons for ending

  2. Civil Obligations - Agreements

    A contract by a minor is not void and any money or property transferred by him under the contract can be recovered only if there has been a total lack of consideration. There are three exceptional cases which a minor is to some extent bound.

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    In addition, where an instrument is originally 'payable to order,' it may become 'payable to bearer' if endorsed in blank by the payee. Section 31 of the Reserve Bank of India Act: It is important to note that the above definition is subject to the provisions of Section 31 of

  2. 'Gillett v. Holt is a watershed in the law of estoppel. The need to

    is crucial in determining the status of proprietary estoppel after Gillett v Holt. Proprietary estoppel has been available as an equitable remedy for decades, performing Equity's duty and intervening in instances where the absence of an informal agreement results in a manifest abuse of legal property rights.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work