defender of his or her own position. In a climate based on such values, the role of the court is minimal. However, it can be suggested that modern values may be more based on co-operation and that courts may be more concerned with fairness in the exchange process. In Williams v Williams, Ward v Byham and Williams v Roffey, the promisor had made a specific request and got what he/she asked for. But it is not difficult to change the facts of these cases in a manner which might disclose difficult policy issues. Suppose, in Williams v Roffey, it was not the promisor, but the promisee who had instigated the negotiations and there was a veiled threat to the effect, ‘unless you pay me an inflated price for completing the work, I will not go ahead, and I know I have you over a barrel, because I am aware that unless the building work is completed on time, you will have to pay a heavy penalty’. In these circumstances, the court is likely to refuse to allow a contracting party to take unfair advantage of his stronger bargaining position and may promote the value of social co-operation. In D & C Builders Ltd v Rees, the plaintiffs were a firm of builders who had carried out work on the defendant’s shop to the value of almost £747. Two hundred and fifty pounds had been paid on account and the plaintiffs had given the defendant a £14 allowance, so that the outstanding debt was one of almost £483. The defendant did not pay when asked to do so and refrained from replying to requests for payment until some four months later, when the defendant’s wife offered to pay £300 in full and final settlement. The plaintiffs were in desperate financial circumstances and, if they did not accept payment of the £300, they faced the possibility of bankruptcy – a fact of which the defendant was aware. The defendant’s wife consistently refused to pay any more than the £300 offered and the question arose whether the plaintiffs could sue for the balance of the debt due. At first instance, it was held that there was no binding settlement, so that there was no bar to the plaintiffs recovering the balance of the debt. On appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeal unanimously found in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis that under the rule in Foakes v Beer, payment of a lesser sum does not satisfy a greater

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-67

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

defender of his or her own position. In a climate based on such values, the role of the court is minimal. However, it can be suggested that modern values may be more based on co-operation and that courts may be more concerned with fairness in the exchange process. In Williams v Williams, Ward v Byham and Williams v Roffey, the promisor had made a specific request and got what he/she asked for. But it is not difficult to change the facts of these cases in a manner which might disclose difficult policy issues. Suppose, in Williams v Roffey, it was not the promisor, but the promisee who had instigated the negotiations and there was a veiled threat to the effect, ‘unless you pay me an inflated price for completing the work, I will not go ahead, and I know I have you over a barrel, because I am aware that unless the building work is completed on time, you will have to pay a heavy penalty’. In these circumstances, the court is likely to refuse to allow a contracting party to take unfair advantage of his stronger bargaining position and may promote the value of social co-operation. In D & C Builders Ltd v Rees, the plaintiffs were a firm of builders who had carried out work on the defendant’s shop to the value of almost £747. Two hundred and fifty pounds had been paid on account and the plaintiffs had given the defendant a £14 allowance, so that the outstanding debt was one of almost £483. The defendant did not pay when asked to do so and refrained from replying to requests for payment until some four months later, when the defendant’s wife offered to pay £300 in full and final settlement. The plaintiffs were in desperate financial circumstances and, if they did not accept payment of the £300, they faced the possibility of bankruptcy – a fact of which the defendant was aware. The defendant’s wife consistently refused to pay any more than the £300 offered and the question arose whether the plaintiffs could sue for the balance of the debt due. At first instance, it was held that there was no binding settlement, so that there was no bar to the plaintiffs recovering the balance of the debt. On appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeal unanimously found in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis that under the rule in Foakes v Beer, payment of a lesser sum does not satisfy a greater

DOI link for defender of his or her own position. In a climate based on such values, the role of the court is minimal. However, it can be suggested that modern values may be more based on co-operation and that courts may be more concerned with fairness in the exchange process. In Williams v Williams, Ward v Byham and Williams v Roffey, the promisor had made a specific request and got what he/she asked for. But it is not difficult to change the facts of these cases in a manner which might disclose difficult policy issues. Suppose, in Williams v Roffey, it was not the promisor, but the promisee who had instigated the negotiations and there was a veiled threat to the effect, ‘unless you pay me an inflated price for completing the work, I will not go ahead, and I know I have you over a barrel, because I am aware that unless the building work is completed on time, you will have to pay a heavy penalty’. In these circumstances, the court is likely to refuse to allow a contracting party to take unfair advantage of his stronger bargaining position and may promote the value of social co-operation. In D & C Builders Ltd v Rees, the plaintiffs were a firm of builders who had carried out work on the defendant’s shop to the value of almost £747. Two hundred and fifty pounds had been paid on account and the plaintiffs had given the defendant a £14 allowance, so that the outstanding debt was one of almost £483. The defendant did not pay when asked to do so and refrained from replying to requests for payment until some four months later, when the defendant’s wife offered to pay £300 in full and final settlement. The plaintiffs were in desperate financial circumstances and, if they did not accept payment of the £300, they faced the possibility of bankruptcy – a fact of which the defendant was aware. The defendant’s wife consistently refused to pay any more than the £300 offered and the question arose whether the plaintiffs could sue for the balance of the debt due. At first instance, it was held that there was no binding settlement, so that there was no bar to the plaintiffs recovering the balance of the debt. On appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeal unanimously found in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis that under the rule in Foakes v Beer, payment of a lesser sum does not satisfy a greater

defender of his or her own position. In a climate based on such values, the role of the court is minimal. However, it can be suggested that modern values may be more based on co-operation and that courts may be more concerned with fairness in the exchange process. In Williams v Williams, Ward v Byham and Williams v Roffey, the promisor had made a specific request and got what he/she asked for. But it is not difficult to change the facts of these cases in a manner which might disclose difficult policy issues. Suppose, in Williams v Roffey, it was not the promisor, but the promisee who had instigated the negotiations and there was a veiled threat to the effect, ‘unless you pay me an inflated price for completing the work, I will not go ahead, and I know I have you over a barrel, because I am aware that unless the building work is completed on time, you will have to pay a heavy penalty’. In these circumstances, the court is likely to refuse to allow a contracting party to take unfair advantage of his stronger bargaining position and may promote the value of social co-operation. In D & C Builders Ltd v Rees, the plaintiffs were a firm of builders who had carried out work on the defendant’s shop to the value of almost £747. Two hundred and fifty pounds had been paid on account and the plaintiffs had given the defendant a £14 allowance, so that the outstanding debt was one of almost £483. The defendant did not pay when asked to do so and refrained from replying to requests for payment until some four months later, when the defendant’s wife offered to pay £300 in full and final settlement. The plaintiffs were in desperate financial circumstances and, if they did not accept payment of the £300, they faced the possibility of bankruptcy – a fact of which the defendant was aware. The defendant’s wife consistently refused to pay any more than the £300 offered and the question arose whether the plaintiffs could sue for the balance of the debt due. At first instance, it was held that there was no binding settlement, so that there was no bar to the plaintiffs recovering the balance of the debt. On appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeal unanimously found in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis that under the rule in Foakes v Beer, payment of a lesser sum does not satisfy a greater

ABSTRACT

In D & C Builders Ltd v Rees,59 the plaintiffs were a firm of builders who had carried out work on the defendant’s shop to the value of almost £747. Two hundred and fifty pounds had been paid on account and the plaintiffs had given the defendant a £14 allowance, so that the outstanding debt was one of almost £483. The defendant did not pay when asked to do so and refrained from replying to requests for payment until some four months later, when the defendant’s wife offered to pay £300 in full and final settlement. The plaintiffs were in desperate financial circumstances and, if they did not accept payment of the £300, they faced the possibility of bankruptcy – a fact of which the defendant was aware. The defendant’s wife consistently refused to pay any more than the £300 offered and the question arose whether the plaintiffs could sue for the balance of the debt due. At first instance, it was held that there was no binding settlement, so that there was no bar to the plaintiffs recovering the balance of the debt. On appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeal unanimously found in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis that under the rule in Foakes v Beer,60 payment of a lesser sum does not satisfy a greater debt. Lord Denning MR also thought that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not assist the defendant since he and his wife had sought to take unfair advantage of the plaintiffs’ position:

D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617, CA, p 624 Danckwerts LJ: ... Foakes v Beer, applying the decision in Pinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a settled definitely the rule of law that the payment of a lesser sum than the amount of a debt due cannot be a satisfaction of the debt, unless there is some benefit to the creditor added so that there is an accord and satisfaction ... I also agree that, in the circumstances of the present case, there was no true

accord. The Reeses really behaved very badly. They knew of the plaintiffs’ financial difficulties and used their awkward situation to intimidate them. The plaintiffs did not wish to accept the sum of £300 in discharge of the debt of £482, but were desperate to get some money. It would appear also that the defendant and his wife misled the plaintiffs as to their own financial position. Rees, in his evidence, said: ‘In June I could have paid £700 odd. I could have settled the whole bill.’ There is no evidence that by August, or even November, their financial situation had deteriorated so that they could not pay the £482.