This paper aims to defend what many academic commentators regard as indefensible—the rule in Foakes v. Beer.

For almost four hundred years (since Pinnel's Case) English law has been clear: the payment of, or promise to pay, a smaller sum than the amount due does not discharge the debt, since the debtor provides no considerationfor the creditor's promise to waive the balance—there is no “accord and satisfaction”. The House of Lords approved this rule, albeit reluctantly on the part of Lord Blackburn, in Foakes v. Beer.

At present the law fails to provide an adequate balance between the interests of licensor and licensee when a licensor revokes a licence but gives an unreasonably short notice. The prevailing orthodoxy has followed the Court of Appeal decision in Minister of Health v. Bellotti. This article will argue that the consequences of this decision have proved disastrous for both licensors and licensees. In direct conflict with Bellotti is the Privy Council authority of Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. The King.

Land registration has long proved a source of concern to the Law Commission. Its Third Report in 1987 recommended significant changes to the substantive law; its Fourth Report subsequently incorporated these changes into a comprehensive draft Land Registration Bill which was intended to replace the Land Registration Act 1925 with a modern, simpler statute.

“FOR who shall interest us in contingent remainders,” wrote the young Mr. Maitland in 1879, “… while Chinese metaphysics remain unexplored.” It would indeed be a daunting challenge to kindle even a bare possibility of historical interest in the nooks and crannies of Fearne's elaborate learning. Yet so much progress has been made with Chinese metaphysics since 1879 that perhaps the time has come to riska brief excursion into the history of the contingent remainder. The occasion is a chance discovery in the Public Record Office which unlocks the strange story behind one of the first leading cases on the subject.