It is an astonishing fact that by 1985 Mr Maurice Megrah will have completed no less than 30 years as editor of Byles, 13 of these in partnership with Mr Frank Ryder. Though approaching his 90th year, Maurice Megrah continues to write with undiminished vigour, this being but one of the three substantial textbooks for which he is responsible. It is thus a particular pleasure to welcome a new edition of this long-established work.

As always, the editors have done a painstaking job in bringing the book up to date. It is true that the amount of new English cases on bills of exchange is relatively small, but one of the great strengths of Byles under the present editorial team is that it is not confined to English cases but draws extensively on decisions from all over the Commonwealth, as well as containing numerous references to the American Uniform Commercial Code. The result is an unusually comprehensive coverage of cases affecting bills and notes which will assist practitioners in a number of jurisdictions in addition to our own.

But, despite the care and skill which the editors continue to bring to their task, the time has now come when Byles must be radically revised if it is to remain a useful work of reference. The editors’ loyalty to the original author has meant that in its structure and approach the book remains rooted in the 19th century. It has never been an easy book to use, being neither a straightforward annotation of the Bills of Exchange Act nor a pure textbook, but rather a somewhat unhappy amalgam of the two. The reader seeking an answer to a specific problem will usually find it more convenient to turn to Paget, even though only part of this work (also edited by Maurice Megrah) is devoted to negotiable instruments. All too often the commentary in Byles remains focused on peculiar sets of facts in outdated cases and neglects the more typical problems which are the subject of modern decisions. A good example is the treatment of failure of consideration on p. 246. The text fastens on cases decided 150 years ago and is supported by footnotes referring to even earlier decisions suggesting that partial failure of consideration, even if liquidated, is no defence to a claim on a bill, whereas the