body: I don't fathom the emboldening. 
  
  
  1. Who is **he** and **him**? The creditor or debtor?
  2. Pls see title.
  
  
  Paul Davies. [*JC Smith's The Law of Contract* (2018 2 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Smiths-Law-Contract-Paul-Davies/dp/0198807813/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p 89. 
  
  
  
  > 
  >       [*MWB*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Advertising_Ltd_v_MWB_Business_Exchange_Centres_Ltd) 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
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  
title: Why would binding someone abolish an exception to the rule that bargains bind?