The new UK internal market, as embodied in the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and the common frameworks, is the latest example of market integration, but it is far from being the only one. A myriad of composite market structures exists across the world, including in Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, the US and the EU. This article investigates how the UK internal market compares to other internal markets: to what extent does it follow pre-existing paths, to what extent does it depart from them? It is argued that the UK has diverged from international blueprints in several important aspects. Despite drawing on methods that are frequently employed for achieving economic integration, it reinterprets and combines these in a unique way. The result is an internal market which is defined by an unusual degree of centralisation, strong trade rights and a high potential for deregulation.

Mr. Bruton occupied a flat by virtue of a written agreement with the Quadrant Housing Trust. The agreement specifically categorised itself as a “weekly licence” although it did give exclusive possession to Bruton. For its part, the Trust held the flat as licensee from the freehold owner, Lambeth Council, in order to pursue its charitable housing aims of providing temporary and emergency accommodation. By virtue of section 32 of the Housing Act 1985, any grant of a lease by the Council to the Trust would have been ultra vires. Bruton accepted the “licence” from the Trust on this basis, but now alleged that he held the flat on a lease, giving security of tenure and triggering a repairing obligation for the Trust under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (implied repairing obligations for short term leases). The High Court had held that the agreement was a licence and this was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, with Millett L.J. noting that it was difficult to see how Bruton could have a lease when the Trust itself held no estate in the land out of which a lease could have been granted: [1998] Q.B. 834, 845. The House of Lords, unanimously, held that Bruton had a lease on a simple application of Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809. The fact that the Trust held no estate in the land was neither here nor there: Bruton v. London & Quadrant Housing Trust [1999] 3 W.L.R. 150.

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.

THE facts of Barclays Bank Ltd. v. Quistclose Investments Ltd. are well-known. In July 1964 Rolls Razor Ltd. declared a dividend payment that they were unable to meet. In order to meet their obligation, the company arranged to borrow the amount of the dividend, £210,000, from Quistclose Investments. The money was duly transferred into a separate account of Rolls Razor, opened specially for the purpose, held at Barclays Bank. The dividend was payable on 24 July but had not been paid when, on 27 August, Rolls Razor entered voluntary liquidation. Barclays and Quistclose both claimed the money. Barclays asserted a right of set-off against the Rolls Razor overdraft, while Quistclose claimed that the money was held in trust for them and, since Barclays were aware of this, the bank were accordingly constructive trustees of the funds.

I

The facts of the recent House of Lords decision, White and Carter (Councils), Ltd. v. McGregor, were so simple and have been canvassed so thoroughly as to be now practically a matter of common knowledge. The appellants' business consisted in the placing of advertisements, for a fee, on litter bins which were then distributed to various local authorities. They agreed to run the respondents' advertisement for a period of three years. The respondents repudiated on the ground that their sales manager who had concluded the contract had no authority to do so. The appellants refused to accept the repudiation and duly displayed the advertisements for the entire period, bringing at the proper time a suit for the full amount owing under the contract. The pertinent question was: were the appellants entitled to dismiss the repudiation and give effect to the contract on their side in order to secure performance on the other side; or rather were they obliged to adopt the repudiation as the end of the contract and the beginning of a suit for damages subject to mitigation? The latter view prevailed in all but the House of Lords where a majority of three to two preferred the former.

In coming to this conclusion the House of Lords in effect overruled an earlier decision, viz., Langford and Co., Ltd. v. Dutch, the facts of which were virtually on all fours with those of the present case. In Langford's case the appellant was unsuccessful in recovering the contract price for exhibiting an advertisement film which he persisted in showing despite the respondent's repudiation of the contract.

In disputes over the use and possession of the human body and its parts, there has been a marked reliance on property law concepts. Judges frequently resort to the language of “ownership”, “gifts”, “donations”, “trusts” and so on, in order to resolve disputes over the use of human biomaterials. When this happens, however, we observe certain recurring mistakes. Judges and academics writing in this area have sometimes misunderstood the basic rules governing the creation and operation of property rights. We do not seek to take a stance on the normative matters at stake. Our aim is to provide an accurate account of how property law could operate when applied in the context of human tissue use. We hope to redress some misconceptions, but our bigger goal is to provide a new methodology of how to work through the various questions that must be considered when determining how to regulate human tissue, by explaining how property principles would work at each stage. In this way, we seek to enable those who wish to debate whether property principles should be applied to human tissue the means to have accurate debates.

RATIONALISING the doctrine of anticipatory breach is notoriously difficult. This may explain the complete lack of attempt by the UK Supreme Court to address its conceptual difficulties in its recent judgment in Bunge SA v Nidera BV [2015] UKSC 43; [2015] 3 All E.R. 1082. It is therefore of interest that the Singapore Court of Appeal in The “STX Mumbai” [2015] SGCA 35; [2015] 5 S.L.R. 1 explained why the doctrine of anticipatory breach can be applied to executed contracts (in the sense of being fully executed by the innocent party). Whilst anticipatory breach applies similarly under English law, the English courts have never considered the underlying justification, save to say in a case with a partially executed contract that “it would be very strange and hardly unworkable” if the innocent party had to wait until the time for performance (Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd. [1973] A.C. 331, 356, per Lord Simon).

This article seeks to demonstrate three things. First, the orthodox conceptualisation of the tort of public nuisance is flawed, since: (1) it is in violation of basic private law principles related to privity and the actionability of crimes and (2) if taken seriously would mandate that the tort be abolished (as torts protect private not public rights). Second, the rights at the heart of the tort are the privately actionable rights to pass and repass on public highways and to fish in public waters, and that it is plausible that a sophisticated legal system would recognise such rights. Third, a tort reconceptualised in this way can make sense of: (1) the special damage rule that is generally thought arbitrary and (2) the general intuition that the recovery of damages for pure personal injuries is best left to other torts.