Pinnel's Case

''Pinnel's Case'' (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a, 77 ER 237, also known as ''Pinnel v Cole'', is an important case in English contract law, on the doctrine of part performance. Sir Edward Coke reported the case. The case is authority for the proposition a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole.

Facts

Pinnel sued Cole, in an action of debt upon a bond, for the sum of £8 10s. The defendant, Cole, argued he had, at Pinnel's request, tendered £5 2s 2d before the debt was due, and the plaintiff had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt.

Judgment

The case reports the judgment as follows.

''Pinnel's case'' was applied by '' Foakes v Beer'' 884ref name=Foakes> and ''Jorden v Money'' 854

Commentary

''Pinnel's case'' concerned the doctrine of Accord and satisfaction, rather than Consideration. The judgement makes no reference to consideration; this may be because the action of assumpsit (for which consideration in the absence of a deed was required) was distinct from an action for debt until Slade's Case.

In ''Bagge v Slade'', Coke LCJ (the reporter of ''Pinnel's case'') held that

'...if a man be bound to another by a bill in 1000l and he pays unto him 500l in discharge of this bill, the which he accepts of accordingly, and doth upon this assume and promise to deliver up unto him his said bill of 1000l, this 500l is no satisfaction of the 1000l but yet this is good and sufficient to make a good promise, and upon a good consideration, because he hath paid mony,(s) five hundred pound, and he hath no remedy for this again.'

Thus, ''Bagge v Slade'' was authority for the proposition that part payment of debt can be good consideration for the discharge of that debt.

Similarly, in ''Rawlins v Lockey'', it was said that '30l can be no satisfaction of 60l yet to have the money in his hands without suit is a good consideration to maintain this action upon the promise'. This distinction was maintained until Lord Ellenborough's judgment in ''Fitch v Sutton'' in which he held that part payment of a debt cannot be consideration. This conflation has been met with academic and judicial criticism.

Exceptions to the Rule

The case law has evolved over the years to create a number of exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case.

The exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case include:

* Payment accompanied by fresh consideration;
* Prepayment of debt at the creditor's request;
* Payment of a lesser sum at another place at the creditor's request;
* A contract with creditors after insolvency of the debtor;
* The parties enter into a deed of release; and
* Promissory estoppel.'' Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd'' 947KB 130

See also

*English contract law
*'' Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd''
*'' D&C Builders Ltd v Rees''
*'' Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd''
*'' Re Selectmove Ltd''

Notes

References

*

{{italic title

English contract case law
1602 in English law
1600s in case law
Edward Coke cases
English consideration case law