Legal Case Summary
Foakes v Beer (1883) LR 9 App Cas 605
Summary: Whether part payment of a debt is consideration.
Facts
The respondent, Beer, loaned the appellant, Dr Foakes, £2090 19s. When he was unable to repay this loan she received a judgment in her favour to recover this amount. The pair then entered an agreement whereby ‘in consideration’ of an initial payment of £500 and ‘on condition’ of six-monthly payments of £250 until the whole amount was repaid, she would not enforce her judgment against him. Foakes made these regular payments until the entire amount was repaid. However, he had not paid any interest on the judgement debt, which Beer was entitled to under statute. This interest totalled £302 19s 6d.
Issues
The respondent’s case was that the promise not to enforce the judgement was not supported by good consideration because the appellant had only done what he was already contractually bound to do. The respondent relied on the rule in Pinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117 that part payment of a debt could not be satisfaction of the whole.
Decision / Outcome
The House of Lords held that the respondent’s promise not to enforce the judgment was not binding as Dr Foakes had not provided any consideration. Their Lordships approved the rule in Pinnel’s Case. Lord Selborne said that there had to be
‘some independent benefit, actual of contingent, of a kind which might in law be a good and valuable consideration’.
However, Lord Blackburn expressed some dissatisfaction with this, noting that by accepting less a creditor could in some cases gain a practical benefit.
Updated 13 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the law established in Foakes v Beer (1883) LR 9 App Cas 605 and the rule in Pinnel’s Case (1602). However, readers should be aware of two significant later developments.
First, the doctrine of promissory estoppel, established in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, can in some circumstances prevent a creditor from going back on a promise to accept part payment, operating as a shield against strict enforcement of the rule in Foakes v Beer.
Second, and more directly, Lord Blackburn’s dissatisfaction noted in the article foreshadowed the ‘practical benefit’ doctrine developed in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1. The Court of Appeal there held that a practical benefit obtained by a promisor can constitute good consideration in the context of contract variation. However, the Court of Appeal in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 553 declined to extend the Williams v Roffey practical benefit approach to part payment of a debt, leaving Foakes v Beer intact in that context. The Supreme Court’s decision in the same case ([2018] UKSC 24) did not resolve this point, meaning the relationship between Williams v Roffey and Foakes v Beer remains unsettled and is a live area of academic and legal debate. Students should be aware of this tension when applying these principles.
