hey ive been given this mooting question for monday and basically its about part payment of debt however the question is
whether or not the judge has erred in applying the princible in Williams v Roffey. That the benefits obtained by the party payment of a debt should be treated the same as those benefits obtained under a contract for the provision of goods/services.
prediament
A contract with B for £6m. Agreeing to pay 4m upon delivery of the product and then a further 2m at a later date (april 3rd)
B delivers product to A on specified date in which 4m was paid
A goes through financial difficulties and therefore B agrees to accept £500,000 in full satisfaction, in which A pays.
B later wants to claim the outstanding £1.5m
in the first court, williams v roffey is applied. On appeal Foakes and Bear is applied. Then coming to the current in the supreme court.
My thoughts on the question was to go with Williams v Roffey then onto Re Select and then onto Foakes v Beer and promissory estoppel.
IS THIS WHAT YOU WOULD DO? AM I RIGHT? ANY TIPS?