Re Selectmove Ltd

Last updated
In re Selectmove Ltd
CourtCourt of Appeal
Decided21 December 1993
Citation(s)[1993] EWCA Civ 8, [1995] 1 WLR 474
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingPeter Gibson, Stuart-Smith and Balcombe LJJ
Keywords
consideration, part payment of debt

In re Selectmove Ltd [1993] EWCA Civ 8 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration, and part payments of debt.

Contents

Facts

Selectmove Ltd owed the Inland Revenue 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 Revenue, and there was no consideration for the varied agreement anyway.

Judgment

Peter Gibson LJ (Stuart-Smith and Balcombe LJJ concurring) observed that Foakes v Beer [1] precluded any variation of the agreement to repay the debt without good consideration, despite the recent decision in Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd . Peter Gibson LJ stated that ‘it is clear… that a practical benefit of that nature is not good consideration in law’. As his Lordship put it, in forceful language,

if the principle of Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd is to be extended to an obligation to make payment, it would in effect leave the principle in Foakes v Beer without any application. When a creditor and a debtor who are at arm's length reach agreement on the payment of the debt by instalments to accommodate the debtor, the creditor will no doubt always see a practical benefit to himself in so doing. In the absence of authority there would be much to be said for the enforceability of such a contract. But that was a matter expressly considered in Foakes v Beer yet held not to constitute good consideration in law. Foakes v Beer was not even referred to in Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd , and it is in my judgment impossible, consistently with the doctrine of precedent, for this court to extend the principle of Williams's case to any circumstances governed by the principle of Foakes v Beer . If that extension is to be made, it must be by the House of Lords or, perhaps even more appropriately, by Parliament after consideration by the Law Commission.

Notes

  1. ↑ Foakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1 , 9 App Cas 605, (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605, (1884) 9 App Cas 605(16 May 1884)

Related Research Articles

Estoppel Preventive judicial device in common law

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.

<i>Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd</i> Legal doctrines of promissory estoppel

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 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.

Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.

<i>Foakes v Beer</i>

Foakes v Beer[1884] UKHL 1 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 [i.e., on or after the due date of a money debt] cannot be any satisfaction of the whole."

Accord and satisfaction is a contract law concept about the purchase of the release from a debt obligation. It is one of the methods by which parties to a contract may terminate their agreement. The release is completed by the transfer of valuable consideration that must not be the actual performance of the obligation itself. The accord is the agreement to discharge the obligation and the satisfaction is the legal "consideration" which binds the parties to the agreement. A valid accord does not discharge the prior contract; instead it suspends the right to enforce it in accordance with the terms of the accord contract, in which satisfaction, or performance of the contract will discharge both contracts. If the creditor breaches the accord, then the debtor will be able to bring up the existence of the accord in order to enjoin any action against him.

Estoppel in English law

Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.

Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 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.

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.

<i>D & C Builders Ltd v Rees</i>

D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1965] EWCA Civ 3 is a leading English contract law case on the issue of part payment of debt, estoppel, duress and just accord and satisfaction.

Consideration Concept of legal value in connection with contracts

Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts. The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions.

<i>Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd</i>

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd[1989] EWCA Civ 5 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.

Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract (2008) is a book by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English contract law.

<i>White v Bluett</i>

White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 is an English contract law case, concerning the scope of consideration in English law.

Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of voluntary obligations unfairly exploiting the unequal power of the consenting parties. "Inequality of bargaining power" is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.

Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd[2007] EWCA 1329 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration and promissory estoppel in relation to "alteration promises".

<i>Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd</i>

Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd [1965] Ch 148 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable floating charges for past value. It holds that a floating charge can harden when it secures a debt in an overdraft account, when the bank keeps the facility open as a company takes money out and puts money in.

<i>HBF Dalgety Ltd v Morton</i>

HBF Dalgety Ltd v Morton [1987] 1 NZLR 411 is a leading case in New Zealand regarding accord and satisfaction; it reinforces the English case of Foakes v Beer in New Zealand.

<i>Hirachand Punumchand v Temple</i>

Hirachand Punamchand v Temple [1911] 2 KB 330 is often cited as one of the exceptions to the accord and satisfaction rule laid out in Foakes v Beer. In that case, it is held that an agreement to accept part payment of a debt cannot validly discharge the entire debt. In Hirachand Punamchand v Temple, part payment of a debt is held to be valid because it is supplied by a third party and not the debtor.

The anti-deprivation rule is a principle applied by the courts in common law jurisdictions in which, according to Mellish LJ in Re Jeavons, ex parte Mackay, "a person cannot make it a part of his contract that, in the event of bankruptcy, he is then to get some additional advantage which prevents the property being distributed under the bankruptcy laws." Wood VC had earlier observed that "the law is too clearly settled to admit of a shadow of doubt that no person possessed of property can reserve that property to himself until he shall become bankrupt, and then provide that, in the event of his becoming bankrupt, it shall pass to another and not to his creditors."

<i>Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd</i>

Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd[2018] UKSC 24 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to contract law, concerning consideration and estoppel. Specifically it concerned the effectiveness of "no oral variation" clauses, which provide that any amendments or waiver in relation to the contract must be in writing.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.