Williams v roffey inconsistent with Foakes v beer?

I'm having difficulty getting past the idea that only 'practical benefit' distinguishes the two cases. Are there more distinctions that can be drawn and if not what cases support the view that Foakes is the case that should be followed instead....

Moot point...
If A anticipates they are going to receive a practical benefit from B who refuses to e.g. perform 2 songs on a compilation album but then B does perform for an extra sum- can A refuse to pay B anyway because he didn't derive a benefit from his main contract (didn't finish compillation album on time-penalised and B knew he had this main contract) despite B carrying out their performance (finishing 2 songs).

Reply 1

Onearmedbandit

Indeed. One problem is that I don't even think Foakes was cited during the litigation of Williams.

Have you considered Stilk v Myrick as well? The CA distinguished it from Williams but I'm not so sure about that one either.

Reply 2

domjohn

Williams v Roffey involved the sale and supply of goods and services, whereas Foakes v Beer was an agreement to accept part-payment in full settlement of a debt.

Re Selectmove is a case which recently (1995) brought about an argument for reform of the Foakes v Beer rule, and the judges were willing to hear Williams v Roffey type arguments, but ultimately they were bound as it was a Court of Appeal case, and Foakes v Beer is House of Lords. Also, ReSelectmove did not comply with all of the rules for there to be a Promissory Estoppel remedy.

Stilk v Myrick was reformed by Williams v Roffey where a practical benefit is gained by the promisor, even though the promisee is doing no more than already contracually obliged to do.

For the moot point- he can refuse to pay more because the promisor in fact suffered a detriment from the penalty.