Ratio Decidendi
The payment of a lesser sum of money in satisfaction of a greater sum of money cannot be any satisfaction for the whole debt. A creditor who promises to accept part payment in full discharge of the debt receives no fresh consideration for that promise, since the debtor was already obliged to pay the full amount. However, the payment of a lesser sum before the due date, or at a different place at the creditor's request, or the delivery of a chattel (even of trivial value) in place of part of the money may constitute sufficient consideration for the release of the remainder. The rule is therefore not absolute: the addition of some new element requested by the creditor — some benefit conferred on the creditor beyond mere part payment — can constitute consideration.
তথ্য
Cole was indebted to Pinnel in the sum of £8 10s, payable on 11 November. Cole paid £5 2s 2d on 1 October — one month before the debt fell due — at Pinnel's request, and Pinnel accepted this as full satisfaction of the debt. When Pinnel later sued for the outstanding balance, Cole pleaded the agreement to accept the part payment as full satisfaction. Although the court found for Pinnel on a procedural point (Cole's pleading was defective), the judges stated the rule as a matter of general principle.
রায়ের সারসংক্ষেপ
Sir Edward Coke, reporting the case, set out the rule that payment of a lesser sum cannot satisfy a greater debt because the creditor gains no consideration for releasing the balance. The rule is founded on the doctrine of consideration: the promisee (the creditor) must receive some fresh consideration for their promise to release the debt, and the mere performance of part of an existing obligation provides no such consideration. However, Coke also identified important exceptions: if the creditor requests payment at an earlier date, at a different place, or by delivery of a chattel rather than money (even of less monetary value), this constitutes fresh consideration because the creditor receives something they were not contractually entitled to receive. On the facts, the early payment at Pinnel's request was good consideration, so Cole would have prevailed on the merits — but the case was decided for Pinnel on a technical pleading defect. The rule in Pinnel's Case was subsequently affirmed and hardened into firm precedent by the House of Lords in Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605, despite Lord Blackburn's evident misgivings.
মূল উদ্ধৃতি
"Payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it appears to the Judges that by no possibility, a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum."
— Sir Edward Coke reporting at 117a
"But the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe, etc. in satisfaction is good. For it shall be intended that a horse, hawk, or robe, etc. might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money, in respect of some circumstance."
— Sir Edward Coke reporting at 117a
"If he had paid the lesser sum by request and at a different day or place, that had been good satisfaction."
— Sir Edward Coke reporting at 117a
পরবর্তী ব্যবহার
Affirmed by the House of Lords in Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605, which confirmed the rule that part payment cannot discharge the full debt even where the creditor has promised to accept it as full satisfaction. Lord Blackburn expressed doubt but concurred.
Qualified in equity by the doctrine of promissory estoppel established in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 (Denning J): where a creditor promises to accept less and the debtor relies on that promise, the creditor may be estopped from going back on it.
Considered in Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474, where the Court of Appeal held that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a sword to enable a debtor to recover money paid in part discharge of a debt, and that the rule in Pinnel's Case remains good law subject only to promissory estoppel.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help