One for the legal eagles - forcing the sale of a jointly owned house

[Deleted member 317777]

On the face of it, that sounds surprising.

How sure are you.

If you turn out to be wrong, that could by extremely bad advice.

I’m not going to expand much on it, but I know people who have done it.

 

[motorbiking]

That’s sad, but did they know your ex had no assets, and did you consider suing her?

they were married - she owned at least half of everything.

 

[motorbiking]

I don't know. Most civil actions have a 6 year limitation period.

they were married. I assume.

 

[motorbiking]

I’m not going to expand much on it, but I know people who have done it.

he's trying to protect his credit rating.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

he's trying to protect his credit rating.

Unless it’s in a LTD he should get it back on the rent then.

As much as I hate the idea, Serco or a local council will probably take it on.

 

[motorbiking]

Unless it’s in a LTD he should get it back on the rent then.

doesn't sound like it

As much as I hate the idea, Serco or a local council will probably take it on.

Assuming there is profit to be had - I agree.

 

[blup]

they were married - she owned at least half of everything.

Including half the debt presumably

 

[motorbiking]

I wonder whether Foakes vs Beer applies.

I wasn't quite sure why you were quoting this, but is your angle that there was no consideration in the settlement?

Accepting a payment in full and final settlement of a debt, has the payment as consideration. In the case you quoted there was no consideration, simply a promise not to sue for interest.

 

[MNW67]

I wasn't quite sure why you were quoting this, but is your angle that there was no consideration in the settlement?

Accepting a payment in full and final settlement of a debt, has the payment as consideration. In the case you quoted there was no consideration, simply a promise not to sue for interest.

Foakes v Beer has been the leading case in this area for almost 150 years. It is studied at every university as an essential part of contract law. Its importance transcends its facts. It establishes the principle that part payment of a debt cannot, by itself, extinguish the debt:

Here is some Googling:

AI Overview

Yes, Foakes v Beer is a very important case in English contract law, establishing the rule that a creditor's promise to accept part payment of a debt in full settlement is not legally binding without fresh consideration, meaning the debtor must provide something more than just the reduced payment itself. It is a cornerstone case that reinforces the common law requirement for consideration and has been influential in shaping subsequent legal debates and potential reforms, despite criticism for its rigidity.

AI Overview

Yes, the landmark English contract law case of Foakes v Beer is studied in law degrees, particularly in contract law courses, because it established a fundamental principle regarding the concept of consideration in the context of partial debt payment.

 

[motorbiking]

Foakes v Beer has been the leading case in this area for almost 150 years. It is studied at every university as an essential part of contract law. Its importance transcends its facts. It establishes the principle that part payment of a debt cannot, by itself, extinguish the debt:

Here is some Googling:

AI Overview

Yes, Foakes v Beer is a very important case in English contract law, establishing the rule that a creditor's promise to accept part payment of a debt in full settlement is not legally binding without fresh consideration, meaning the debtor must provide something more than just the reduced payment itself. It is a cornerstone case that reinforces the common law requirement for consideration and has been influential in shaping subsequent legal debates and potential reforms, despite criticism for its rigidity.

AI Overview

Yes, the landmark English contract law case of Foakes v Beer is studied in law degrees, particularly in contract law courses, because it established a fundamental principle regarding the concept of consideration in the context of partial debt payment.

It was a question to you about why you thought it was relevant.

 

[motorbiking]

Including half the debt presumably

no it doesn't work like that.

 

[MNW67]

It was a question to you about why you thought it was relevant.

I was wondering why RBS chased up securespark for the shortfall debt, many years after accepting a part payment in full and final settlement. It seemed like a classic Foakes v Beer scenario.

 

[motorbiking]

I was wondering why RBS chased up securespark for the shortfall debt, many years after accepting a part payment in full and final settlement. It seemed like a classic Foakes v Beer scenario.

Ah ok, so no. F v B is about consideration, not partial settlement. An agreement not to sue for interest in exchange for a debt being paid in instalments is not the same as as offering less than the full amount and having it accepted as full and final settlement.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

I was wondering why RBS chased up securespark for the shortfall debt, many years after accepting a part payment in full and final settlement. It seemed like a classic Foakes v Beer scenario.

Chancers. Like the 6 year rule.

 

[motorbiking]

Chancers. Like the 6 year rule.

because there was a chance he would acknowledge the outstanding debt and invalidate his full and final settlement. Or simply that their records were not up to date.