Contract Law Analysis: Applying Foakes v Beer and Re Selectmove

This case study examines the application of contract law principles, specifically focusing on the cases of Foakes v Beer and Re Selectmove, to a scenario involving Fit-it Ltd. and Out let Ltd. The central issue revolves around a contract for refurbishment and the subsequent settlement of 3 million pounds. The analysis explores whether the principles established in Foakes v Beer, regarding part payment of debt, are binding in this context. It further investigates how the decision in Re Selectmove, concerning practical benefits and pre-existing obligations, would apply to the appeal, particularly concerning the enforceability of the debt settlement and the potential for winding up the business. The report concludes by contrasting the facts of Foakes v Beer with the scenario and emphasizing the obligation to pay the remaining amount as per the Re Selectmove ruling, highlighting the importance of honoring agreed-upon settlements in contract law. Desklib provides similar solved assignments for students.

Law of contract and
Problem solving

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
Question 1:
..........................................................................................................................................................3
Are the principles established in Foakes v Beer binding on this court? Explain your
.....................................................................................................................................................3
Reasoning....................................................................................................................................3
Question 3:
..........................................................................................................................................................4
Explain how the decision in Re Selectmove [1993] EWCA Civ 8, would apply to this
appeal........................................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
The parties to the contract are Fit-it Ltd. And Out let Ltd. Have a contract for refurbishing
the Fit it Ltd were doing 5 more projects in this posh colony and was earning a sound profit from
them. In this case the legal obligations are of concept of consideration and the part performance
is to be considered in this scenario. Full settlement was made by the parties which is 3 million
pound. This project report contains of the principle laid down under the case of Foakes v. Beers
are binding on court and the decision of Re selectmove will apply to this case.
MAIN BODY
Question 1:
Are the principles established in Foakes v Beer binding on this court? Explain your
Reasoning.
In the case of Foakes v Beer, Foakes owes Beer two thousand and ninety pounds. Both the
parties entered an agreements which is not under seal. The agreement states that Foakes have to
pay five hundred pound immediately and one hundred and fifty pound in every six month till the
payment is fully paid and in return to this Beer will not take any action against him. But Foakes
paid the entire principal amount in more than 6 years. Beer leave to proceed with the court
proceeding and she claimed for interest as she was not paid the entire principal immediately.
The court held that the agreement done by Foakes and Beer was not under the seal and the
defendant will not be bound because there was consideration on his part(Telles and Klingler,
2022). The Judge refers the doctrine laid down under the Pinnel's case that payment for lesser
sum at the day of satisfaction for greater amount can not be satisfaction the whole. There is no
possibility that a lesser sum will be satisfaction for a greater sum to the plaintiff. This case is not
related to the situation because in this case law there is amount of interest is not paid and the
payment was made partly. Beer did not agree to settlement but in this scenario the Fit it Ltd.
Agree to settle the amount on 3 million pound and after settlement there is no obligation on the
other party to pay any sum. The payment of 3 million pound was full and final payment from the

Out let Ltd. After successful completion of 5 projects and earning well from each of the project
they were asking to take sum which was settled by them. This case is for the payment of interest
and the amount was not settled by the parties but in this case the amount is been settled by
parties(Woebbeking, 2019). At the time of payment they will disagree to take the amount or they
can ask for after payment for the remaining amount, but they settle for this amount and this is
final amount. The provisions of this case did not relate to this situation.
Question 3:
Explain how the decision in Re Selectmove [1993] EWCA Civ 8, would apply to this
appeal.
The Selectmove Ltd. Fails to pay payroll deduction from there employees to the Crown. The
company was in a financial difficulty and a Tax collector met with the manager of the company.
The company proposed that they will pay the current deduction through instalments of one
thousand pounds every month. The collector said that he will get approval from the superiors.
But the crown demanded full payment of twenty four thousand six hundred and fifty pounds. The
company paid amount of one thousand pounds for 4 months the crown said to liquidate the
company and the payment of arrears of amount seventeen thousand four hundred and sixty six
pound to be paid to the crown(Awdry and et, al., 2021). In the case where there is a practical
benefit for accepting less amount in any payment of debt, the consideration is not binding for the
contract. The attempt of Selectmove failed as this was held that this was only where some
obligations is pre-promised to supply the goods and services. This case is related to question
because in this case full payment was asked from the party and the party have to pay in full when
they asked to. They call for winding up of there business for paying the debt. The Out let Ltd
also have same situation as Selectmove and they have to pay the amount at any cost. They have
to pay the amount after winding up the business, they have to pay the payment for which they
agree before. They have to pay the debt for which other party completed the consideration on
their part. The Out let Ltd(MacQueen, 2022). Have to pay the remaining amount of 2 million
pound to Fit it Ltd. In full. The selectmove did not have good financial condition then also they

were liable to pay the remaining amount, and the Out let Ltd also have same situation as the case
law. So, they also have to the remaining amount to Fit it Ltd.
CONCLUSION
This report concludes that in first case of Foakes v Beer the facts were different from the
scenario and they were not matched. In this case the issue is for the interest on the principal
amount but in this scenario the situation is for the remaining principal amount. The payment is to
be paid after settlement once made. In second situation the party have to pay the remaining
amount as in the case of Re Selectmove they have to pay the amount of arrear. They pay the
amount by winding up their business and in this situation the Out let Ltd have same situation.

REFERENCES
Awdry, R., and et, al., 2021. Contract cheating: To legislate or not to legislate-is that the
question?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, pp.1-15.
MacQueen, H.L., 2022. Third Ole Lando Memorial Lecture: European Contract Law in the Post-
Brexit and (Post?)-Pandemic United Kingdom. European Review of Private Law, 30(1).
Telles, P. and Klingler, D., 2022. Non-Compliance with contract terms: a comparative view on
(non) regulation and remedies. Copenhagen Business School, CBS LAW Research
Paper, (22-03).
Woebbeking, M.K., 2019. The impact of smart contracts on traditional concepts of contract
law. J. Intell. Prop. Info. Tech. & Elec. Com. L., 10, p.105.