Why should Canadian courts follow 1809 Eng decision when UK cts. Ont CA precedent goes one way, but commercial reality and Williams go the other. Related but distinct issue of POR promising to accept less than PEE originally obliged to pay. Generally interest also is payable after judgment until fully paid. Plaintiff sues for interest after defendant has paid last installment.
Defendant says plaintiff promised to forego interest.
Typical of C19 contract jurisprudence in general. Demonstrates legislature's rejection of commercial unreality of Foakes v. Beer To encourage DOR's to pay debts, DOR's need to know that promise to accept less is enforceable. If promises of COR's to accept less are NOT enforceable, DOR's less likely to make them. Last few cases we studied, e.g. Gilbert Steel v. University Construction and Foakes v. Beer dealt with consideration in the context of modification of an existing contractual relationship. Traditional view saw that doing what one is already contractually obliged to do for someone is NOT consideration for a promise from that SAME person e.g. to pay more We will now vary this in a crucial respect.