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

[MNW67]

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.

You clearly don't understand why the case is so important. As I said above, the case transcends its facts. This is how the law works. The facts of the case itself were very particular. But the principle was much broader. It is 100% about the principle of part payment. It is the leading case and has been for almost 150 years. Here is a third attempt:

AI Overview

Foakes v Beer is important because it established the rule that paying part of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to waive the entire debt, reinforcing the principle from Pinnel's Case. This case affirmed the "pre-existing duty" rule in the context of part payments, meaning a debtor must provide something extra—like paying early or in a different form—to have their promise of full payment be legally binding. The ruling, though criticized for failing to recognize practical realities, remains a key case on the doctrine of consideration in English contract law.

 

[MNW67]

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.

Almost. Because of Foakes vs Beer, the full and final settlement was never binding. They were probably trying to get SS to acknowledge the debt to give them another 6/12 years to pursue him.

 

[MNW67]

A fourth attempt:

AI Overview

No, a "full and final settlement" (affirmed by Foakes v Beer and Pinnel's Case) is not legally binding on its own if it's merely a promise by a creditor to accept less than the full amount owed. This is because there's generally no new consideration from the debtor for the creditor's promise to forgo the remainder of the debt.

 

[motorbiking]

Almost. Because of Foakes vs Beer, the full and final settlement was never binding. They were probably trying to get SS to acknowledge the debt to give them another 6/12 years to pursue him.

that is nonsense your first Googling has already told you what Foakes vs Beer, is about.

You clearly don't understand why the case is so important. As I said above, the case transcends its facts. This is how the law works. The facts of the case itself were very particular. But the principle was much broader. It is 100% about the principle of part payment. It is the leading case and has been for almost 150 years. Here is a third attempt:

AI Overview

Foakes v Beer is important because it established the rule that paying part of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to waive the entire debt, reinforcing the principle from Pinnel's Case. This case affirmed the "pre-existing duty" rule in the context of part payments, meaning a debtor must provide something extra—like paying early or in a different form—to have their promise of full payment be legally binding. The ruling, though criticized for failing to recognize practical realities, remains a key case on the doctrine of consideration in English contract law.

Foakes owed Beer a debt and was ordered to pay. Foakes asked to pay in instalments in exchange for Beer not claiming interest.
The debt was already owed so agreeing to pay was not consideration. Beer's agreement not to claim interest if the debt was paid in instalments did not vary the contract because there was no consideration. You haven't understood your own googling,

A fourth attempt:

AI Overview

No, a "full and final settlement" (affirmed by Foakes v Beer and Pinnel's Case) is not legally binding on its own if it's merely a promise by a creditor to accept less than the full amount owed. This is because there's generally no new consideration from the debtor for the creditor's promise to forgo the remainder of the debt.

I'm not interested in your googling. I was asking why you thought it was relevant. Its obvious you don't know.

 

[MNW67]

that is nonsense your first Googling has already told you what Foakes vs Beer, is about.


Foakes owed Beer a debt and was ordered to pay. Foakes asked to pay in instalments in exchange for Beer not claiming interest.
The debt was already owed so agreeing to pay was not consideration. Beer's agreement not to claim interest if the debt was paid in instalments did not vary the contract because there was no consideration. You haven't understood your own googling,


I'm not interested in your googling. I was asking why you thought it was relevant. Its obvious you don't know.

You are such a numpty sometimes. I have explained why it is important. It means that most "full and final" settlements are not actually legally binding. Something which seemed relevant both to the OP and to securespark's case. I studied Foakes v Beer at university and have used it in my work. It is one of the most important cases in all of contract law. I have now given you four Google AIs which show that it means exactly what I said it means. Your problem seems to be that you are unable to separate the facts of a case from the legal principle involved.

 

[motorbiking]

You are such a numpty sometimes. I have explained why it is important. It means that most "full and final" settlements are not actually legally binding. Something which seemed relevant both to the OP and to securespark's case. I studied Foakes v Beer at university and have used it in my work. It is one of the most important cases in all of contract law. I have now given you four Google AIs which show that it means exactly what I said it means. Your problem seems to be that you are unable to separate the facts of a case from the legal principle involved.

time to go back to the books then. You've clearly not understood the caselaw. I wasn't even looking to start an argument with you - I was genuinely interested in why you thought it relevant. It isn't.

Almost. Because of Foakes vs Beer, the full and final settlement was never binding.

Mortgages are priority debts, there is no obligation to accept a reduced amount as full and final settlement. If SS lawyers did it properly and the bank properly acknowledged they were settling the debt. the debt was settled. No amount of waffle from you on something completely irrelevant changes that.

They were probably trying to get SS to acknowledge the debt to give them another 6/12 years to pursue him.

as I have already said.

 

[MNW67]

And another:

AI Overview

In the context of "Foakes v Beer" and a "full and final settlement," this refers to the principle that a creditor can generally still pursue the remaining debt even if they agree to accept a smaller amount in "full and final settlement," because part payment of a debt is not sufficient legal consideration for a promise to forgive the rest of the debt. To be legally binding, the debtor must provide fresh consideration, such as paying earlier, paying at a different location, or providing something else of value, or the promise must be made in a formal deed or, in some cases, be protected by the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel.

 

[blup]

no it doesn't work like that.

Joint mortgagees must be able to sue each other if one has borne more than their share of the debt, unless presumably the divorce court sides with the woman

 

[MNW67]

time to go back to the books then. You've clearly not understood the caselaw. I wasn't even looking to start an argument with you - I was genuinely interested in why you thought it relevant. It isn't.


Mortgages are priority debts, there is no obligation to accept a reduced amount as full and final settlement. If SS lawyers did it properly and the bank properly acknowledged they were settling the debt. the debt was settled. No amount of waffle from you on something completely irrelevant changes that.

as I have already said.

OMG!!!

How can anyone be so stubborn. Foakes vs Beer says that most "full and final" settlements are not binding. You have clearly never studied law at university if you do not know this. That is why I asked if a Deed of Settlement had been used. That is the only sure fire way to make it binding.

I have now provided five Google AIs saying the same thing

Mortgage payments are usually classified as "priority debts". That just means if you don't pay your mortgage, you suffer severe consequences i.e repossession. The same as utilities and council tax, which are also "priority debts". But a mortgage shortfall is just like any other unsecured debt. It has no special status. The point about the obligation is utterly irrelevant.

 

[motorbiking]

OMG!!! Why are you so stupid and pretending you have studied law...

Stop being silly and read Day v McLea [1889]. Full and Final Settlements are fully binding if there is a meeting of minds and formal acceptance.

“If a person sends a sum of money on the terms that it is to be taken if at all, in satisfaction of a larger claim; if the money is kept, it is a question of fact as to the terms upon which it is so kept. The accord and satisfaction imply an agreement to take the money in satisfaction of the claim in respect of which it is sent. If accord is a question of agreement, there must be either two minds agreeing or one of the two persons acting in such a way as to induce the other to think that the money is taken satisfaction of the claim, and according to act upon that view”.

SS got a letter from the bank.

 

[MNW67]

Why are you so stupid and pretending you have studied law...

Because I did

Did you?

 

[motorbiking]

Because I did

Did you?

yep, got a 1st because I was listening. ..

Builders v Stuart (1992)
Bracken v Billinghurst (2003)

 

[motorbiking]

Joint mortgagees must be able to sue each other if one has borne more than their share of the debt, unless presumably the divorce court sides with the woman

when two people get married they are joined as one, not just in love and happiness, but everything they own, irrelevant of who pays what.

 

[MNW67]

Stop being silly and read Day v McLea [1889]. Full and Final Settlements are fully binding if there is a meeting of minds and formal acceptance.

“If a person sends a sum of money on the terms that it is to be taken if at all, in satisfaction of a larger claim; if the money is kept, it is a question of fact as to the terms upon which it is so kept. The accord and satisfaction imply an agreement to take the money in satisfaction of the claim in respect of which it is sent. If accord is a question of agreement, there must be either two minds agreeing or one of the two persons acting in such a way as to induce the other to think that the money is taken satisfaction of the claim, and according to act upon that view”.

Day v McLea seems to be an obscure case about cashing cheques. It wasn't a HoL case. It does not compare in any way to the leading case of Foakes v Beer, known to anyone who has studied law at university.

 

[MNW67]

yep, got a 1st because I was listening. ..

How come you don't seem to know any of the basic principles. Such as the leading case we are discussing, or the fundamental principles of Constitutional Law.