I don't fathom the emboldening.
Who is he and him? The creditor or debtor?
Pls see title.
Paul Davies. JC Smith's The Law of Contract (2018 2 ed). p 89.
MWB has now been [
appealed to] [decided by] the Supreme Court. Perhaps the most unsatisfactory outcome would be for the Supreme Court to seek to reconcile the two lines of case law. It is suggested that the Supreme Court has a clear choice to make: it can either depart from Foakes v Beer and endorse the ‘practical benefit’ approach in Williams v Roffey Bros, or it can uphold the principle in Foakes v Beer and overrule Williams v Roffey Bros. Overruling Foakes v Beer was recommended by the Law Revision Committee in 1937 but was not acted on by Parliament. Indeed, departing from Foakes v Beer might be thought to undermine the doctrine of consideration. But this is not necessarily so. It may be that a distinction could evolve where consideration is required for the formation of contracts, but not for their variation.68 In any event, the essence of the doctrine of consideration would remain intact. A person who agrees to pay an increased price in order to induce another to fulfil his contractual duty, or to take a lesser sum in full satisfaction in order to induce his debtor to pay something, is making a bargain. He asks for something in return for his promise to pay more—or not to sue for the balance, as the case may be—and gets what he asks for. It might even be thought that to hold him bound, far from impairing the basic rule that bargains are binding, would be to abolish an exception to that rule. Lord Blackburn recognised this in Foakes v Beer but was dissuaded by his brethren from dissenting on that ground. However, the actual result in Foakes v Beer may be unaffected because there was probably no bargain and no intention to release any existing rights. And even in situations where there is a bargain, that would not always be enforceable, since the outcome would depend on whether the party surrendering his contractual rights did so under economic duress.69