Foakes V Beer Case Study

912 Words4 Pages
2. Consideration is a necessary segment in a simple contract, there must be something significantly worth for the guarantee by the other party to the contract and must be originate from the promise however it is not necessary to find the promisor. The rule of Pinnel’ case is the payment of a lesser sum will not extinguish a debt for a greater amount. The rule of pinnel’s case was unfair because the payment of a lesser sum not sufficient to discharge a whole debt, creditor’s promise not to sue the debtor for further payment not enforceable by law (Foakes V Beer) and creditor can still sue for any outstanding sum form a debtor This rule enables a creditor to make a promise and then change his mind. The case Foakes v Beer Foakes owed Beer a…show more content…
Allows a party to recover the benefit of a promise made even if a legal contract does not exist Case of Musumerci V Winadell An agreement to reduce shop rental payments in a shopping complex was held to be contractually binding because there were tangible, although indirect practical benefits accruing to the promisor landlord from the continued occupancy of the premises by the tenant instead of the shop closing down. Practical benefit Winadell gained by promising lower rent was enhanced capacity of Winadell gained by promising lower rent was enhanced capacity of Winadell to keep a fully occupied shopping centre by Musumeci to decidion to stay in occupation of their shop notwithstanding the new competition. There was valid consideration for agreement t vary the lease It creates uncertainty in commercial dealings as well as an outcome that is fair when the promise has relied on the promisor’s promise to accept lesser…show more content…
- Knowledge of reliance by promisor - Determent suffered by promise - Unconsciousnable conduct by promisor’ The Case of Central London Property V Hightrees House [1947] Promissory estoppel occurs when there is a contractual relationship between parties. Like when there is legal relationship between the promise and the promisor Requirement of P.E. is promisor must give clear and unambiguous statement that he does not intend to enforce his legal rights. Promisee must have acted on that promise It would be inequitable for the promisor to renege on his promise It can be used only as a defense by the promisee Je Maintiendrai Pty V Quaqlai Promissory estoppel can be used by a tenant to prevent landlord from denying a promise to lower rent and landlord cannot claim full amount. To use promissory estopple is necessary that the promise tenant to show that there was actual or prospective detriment as a result of having acted on the promise. Combe V Combe Promissory estopple can only be used as a shield not a sword Promissory estoppel does not change the rule that consideration is necessary in all simple

    More about Foakes V Beer Case Study

      Open Document