|
Foakes V Beer
is an English contract law case, which applied the controversial pre-existing duty rule in the context of part payments of debts. It is 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 lesser sum on the day .e., on or after the due date of a money debtcannot be any satisfaction of the whole." Facts The appellant, Dr 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 (£52,615.38 in 2012 adjusted for inflation) and pay £150 twice yearly until the whole amount was paid back. Foakes was in financial difficulty and, with the help of his solicitor, drew up an agreemen ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Functions Of The House Of Lords
Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, it for many centuries had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers, for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England. Appeals were technically not to the House of Lords, but rather to the King-in-Parliament. In 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act devolved the appellate functions of the House to an Appellate Committee, composed of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (informally referred to as Law Lords). They were then appointed by the Lord Chancellor in the same manner as other judges. During the 20th and early 21st century, the judicial functions were gradually removed. Its final trial of a peer was in 1935, and in 1948, the use of special courts for such trials was abolished. The procedure of impeachment became seen as obsolete. In 2009, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Lindley LJ
Nathaniel Lindley, Baron Lindley, (29 November 1828 – 9 December 1921) was an English judge. Early life He was the second son of the botanist Dr. John Lindley, born at Acton Green, London. From his mother's side, he was descended from Sir Edward Coke. He was educated at University College School, and studied for a time at University College London, and the University of Edinburgh and University of Cambridge in 1898 and achieved Doctor of Civil Law in University of Oxford in 1903. Legal career He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in 1850, and began practice in the Court of Chancery. In 1855 he published ''An Introduction to the Study of Jurisprudence'', consisting of a translation of the general part of Thibaut's ''System des Pandekten Rechts'', with copious notes. In 1860 he published in two volumes his ''Treatise on the Law of Partnership, including its Application to Joint Stock and other Companies'', and in 1862 a supplement including the Companies Act 1862. This w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
1884 In Case Law
Events January–March * January 4 – The Fabian Society is founded in London. * January 5 – Gilbert and Sullivan's '' Princess Ida'' premières at the Savoy Theatre, London. * January 18 – Dr. William Price attempts to cremate his dead baby son, Iesu Grist, in Wales. Later tried and acquitted on the grounds that cremation is not contrary to English law, he is thus able to carry out the ceremony (the first in the United Kingdom in modern times) on March 14, setting a legal precedent. * February 1 – ''A New English Dictionary on historical principles, part 1'' (edited by James A. H. Murray), the first fascicle of what will become ''The Oxford English Dictionary'', is published in England. * February 5 – Derby County Football Club is founded in England. * March 13 – The siege of Khartoum, Sudan, begins (ends on January 26, 1885). * March 28 – Prince Leopold, the youngest son and the eighth child of Queen Victoria a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Collier V Wright Ltd
is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration and promissory estoppel in relation to "alteration promises". Facts Mr Collier was one of three partners of a property developer. They had assented to a court order to pay £46,000 to Wright Ltd in monthly instalments of £600, and were jointly liable. From 1999 the payments went down to £200 a month. In 2000, Mr Collier swore that there was a meeting where Wright Ltd said he would be severally liable (for £15,600), rather than jointly (as a partner). The other two partners went bankrupt in 2002 and 2004. In 2006, when Mr Collier had finally made his payments (totalling exactly one third of the debt) Wrights served on him a statutory demand for the 'balance of the debt'. Mr Collier applied under rule 6.4 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (because the debt was disputable on ‘substantial grounds’ (r.6.5(4)(b)); so he only needed to show there was a ‘genuine triable issue’ in which case the court would se ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Selectmove Ltd
is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration, and part payments of debt. Facts Selectmove Ltd owed the Inland Revenue The Inland Revenue was, until April 2005, a department of the British Government responsible for the collection of direct taxation, including income tax, national insurance contributions, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, corporation ... substantial sums in outstanding tax and national insurance. The managing director, Mr ffooks, met with Mr Polland, from the Inland Revenue and said he would pay future tax as it fell due and the arrears at £1,000 a month. Mr Polland said he would have to check and would contact the managing director if it was unacceptable. Selectmove Ltd heard nothing until a £25,650 notice came in and a threat of a wind-up petition. Mr ffooks subsequently claimed that the Revenue had said he could repay less. The High Court held that even if that were found to be true, Mr Polland had not bound the Re ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Williams V Roffey Bros Ltd
is a leading English contract law case. It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the 'promiseor'. This was a departure from the previously established principle that promises to perform pre-existing contractual obligations could not be good consideration. Facts Roffey Bros was contracted by Shepherds Bush Housing Association Ltd to refurbish 27 flats at Twynholm Mansions, Lillie Road, London SW6. They subcontracted carpentry to Mr Lester Williams for £20,000 payable in instalments. Some work was done and £16,200 was paid. Then Williams ran into financial difficulty because the price was too low. Roffey Bros was going to be liable under a penalty clause for late completion, so they had a meeting on 9 April 1986 and promised an extra £575 per flat for on time completion. Williams did eight flats and stopped because he had only got £1,500. New carpe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
D&C Builders Ltd V Rees
''D & C Builders Ltd v Rees'' 965EWCA Civ 3is a leading English contract law case on the issue of part payment of debt, estoppel, duress and just accord and satisfaction. Facts D & C Builders Ltd was a two man building firm run by Mr Donaldson and Mr Casey. They had done work for Mr Rees at 218 Brick Lane, London E1, coming to £732. Mr Rees had only paid £250. £482 was owing. D&C were facing bankruptcy if they were not paid. Mrs Rees phoned up to complain that the work was bad, and refused to pay more than £300. D&C reluctantly accepted and took a receipt marked ‘in completion of account’. After that, they consulted their solicitors and sued for the balance. Judgement Lord Denning MR held that the doctrine of part payment of a debt not discharging the whole ‘has come under heavy fire’ but noted that estoppel, deriving from the principle laid down in '' Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co.'', could give relief in equity. Although in his opinion part payment of debt could ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Estoppel
Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law. Types of estoppel There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so. By way of illustration: * If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of ''promissory estoppel'' may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hughes V Metropolitan Railway Co
''Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co'' 877is a House of Lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the case of ''Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd'' in his development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. Facts Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the Railway Company at 216 Euston Road. Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. Notice was given on 22 October 1874 from which the tenants had until 22 April to finish the repairs. On 28 November, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing that Hughes purchase the tenant's leasehold interest. Negotiations began but later broke down, at which point the landlord demanded the repair of the building from 6 months since the original notice. The tenant claimed he should have had 6 months from the time the ne ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Central London Property Trust Ltd V High Trees House Ltd
''Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd'' 947KB 130 is a famous English contract law decision in the High Court. It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in contract law in England and Wales. However, the most significant part of the judgment is ''obiter dicta'' as it relates to hypothetical facts; that is, the landlord did ''not'' seek repayment of the full wartime rent. Denning J held estoppel to be applicable if Facts High Trees House Ltd leased a block of flats in Clapham, London from Central London Property Trust Ltd. The agreement was made in 1937 and specified an annual ground rent of £2,500. The outbreak of World War II in September 1939 led to a downturn in the rental market. High Trees struggled to find tenants for the property and approached Central London Property Trust in January 1940 to request that the rent be lowered. A reduction to £1,250 per year was agreed in writing, though the duration was not specified and no c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Per Incuriam
''Per incuriam'', literally translated as "through lack of care" is a device within the common law system of judicial precedent. A finding of ''per incuriam'' means that a previous court judgment has failed to pay attention to relevant statutory provision or precedents. The significance of a judgment having been decided ''per incuriam'' is that it need not be followed by a lower court. Ordinarily, the '' rationes'' of a judgment is binding upon lower courts in similar cases. However, a lower court is free to depart from a decision of a superior court where that earlier judgment was decided ''per incuriam''. Examples of ''per incuriam'' Examples of ''per incuriam'' are uncommon, partly because the device is perceived by upper courts as a type of '' lèse-majesté'', and respectful lower courts prefer to distinguish such precedent cases if possible. The Court of Appeal in ''Morelle Ltd v Wakeling'' 9552 QB 379 stated that as a general rule the only cases in which decisions ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pinnel's Case
''Pinnel's Case'' 6025 Co. Rep. 117a, also known as ''Penny v Cole'', is an important case in English contract law, on the doctrine of part performance. In it, Sir Edward Coke opined that a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole. Facts Pinnel sued Cole, in an action of debt upon a bond, for the sum of £8 10s. The defendant, Cole, argued he had, at Pinnel's request, tendered £5 2s 2d before the debt was due, and the plaintiff had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt. (KahuroSam 2021) Judgment The case reports the judgment as follows. ''Pinnel's case'' was followed by '' Foakes v Beer'' 884ref name=Foakes> and ''Jorden v Money'' 854 Exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's Case The case law has evolved over the years to create a number of exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case. The exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case include: * Payment accompanied by fresh consideration; * Prepayment of debt at the creditor's request; * Payment of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
