John Weston Foakes v. However, a lesser sum of payment with a gift of horse, hawk, etc would be a good satisfaction because the gift might be more valuable to the plaintiff than the money, or otherwise the plaintiff would not had accepted it in satisfaction.
Third, repayment of the debt in kind is of decided advantage to the creditor, because it is up to him to decide upon a value for what is given to him by the debtor in lieu of money. This issue has been addressed by the principle of consideration, the principle of practical benefit and the notion of economic duress, which permit the court to differentiate between forced and freely entered into bargains.
The development of estoppel into promissory estoppel was an important improvement in law. In such instances, the mutual agreements between the creditors are sufficient consideration, but the debtor cannot take recourse to such consideration Owens, It assisted the promisee and minimized the disadvantages that they might encounter.
Nevertheless, in Central London Property Trust v. Roffey was to be made applicable to part — payments of debts. This is the loophole in the rule. It was because consideration was part of the factor that caused Cole had to pay the remaining sum of the debt to Pinnel.
The act of promisor to claim back the original rental might be unfair. As such, it is upto to the creditor to specify the mode of payment and it is not the prerogative of the debtor.
It was obviously very unfair to Beer. Dening J developed promissory estoppel to limit the traditional estoppel and to extend the doctrine.
Therefore, the existence of promissory estoppel is very important. In addition, the debtor is also at a distinct advantage, because, the ignominy and other drawbacks associated with bankruptcy can be circumvented.
A lot of cases were judged unfairly under this rule. High Trees House, Denning LJ applied promissory estoppel to part payment of rent, which is analogous to part — payment of a debt. They would have been estopped from asserting their strict legal right to payment in full by their promise to accept the lesser sum.
Both the promisees had acted on their detriment. To this Cole submitted that Pinnel had accepted this lesser payment in full satisfaction of the amount owed to him.
Since, the repayment had been on the agreed upon date, the court ruled that the debt had not been discharged in full Pinnel's Case Cole had to pay the outstanding sum to Pinnel was because there was no consideration for Pinnel to forgone the money. Lastly, promissory estoppel can be raised.
Contract is a binding agreement between two or more parties.
Accordingly, Beer and Foakes signed an agreement to that effect. High Trees House, Denning LJ applied promissory estoppel to part payment of rent, which is analogous to part — payment of a debt.
There were 4 main criticisms responded to this rule which were stated by Hickling. Promissory estoppel had solved the troubles that had been following the judges for many years. The lacuna in that agreement was that there was no mention about interest on the debt to which Beer was entitled.
Although the promisor only mentioned that half of the rental will be deducted and never indicated the expiry date for such offering, they could claim back the original rental from High Trees.
Hence, such repayment is deemed to be sufficient satisfaction Owens, The exceptions to this rule clearly specify the conditions that render part — payment sufficient for full discharge of the debt. On another hand, I agree to the judgment in the High Trees Case.The doctrine of promissory estoppel has effectively solved the problems arising from the Rule in Pinnel’s Case.
Bibliography Graw, S,An introduction to the law. For promissory estoppel to operate five elements need to be present. There must have been; a clear and unambiguous to accept less, an intention to create legal relations, Bill must have altered his position in reliance on the promise, it must be inequitable for Jake not to be bound, and finally Jake must not have given notice of his intention.
Synopsis: This essay examines the rule knows as The Rule in Pinnel’s Case and how it impacted upon the doctrine of consideration. It also examines the problems arising from the Rule in Pinnel’s Case, the subsequent exceptions that were developed to circumvent the rule and in detail the most important exception of them; Promissory estoppel and.
Pinnel's case and promissory estoppel. Topics: Contract, Promissory Estoppel Essay Promissory Estoppel This article tackles this tricky topic by dissecting promissory estoppel. by Adam Kramer, Lecturer in Law, University of Durham Promises are special in our society because there is a societal or moral convention that allows a.
The rule in Pinnel’s case, which had been in existence for more than a hundred years prior to this decision, states that from the perspective of common law no part – payment can constitute satisfaction for the total amount owed. Literature review: Pinnel's Case was criticized of its unfairness judgment because Pinnel could go back on his promise that he had made to Cole.
There were 4 main criticisms responded to this rule which were stated by Hickling. The first criticism is that "The Rule Of Pinnel's Case&quo.Download