Pinnels Case

Pinnel s Case and ConsiderationOn the 11th of November 1600 , Pinnel sued Cole in the court . The make do behind this was that Cole had repaid only ?5 2s 2d , whereas Pinnel had to be paid ?8 10s . To this Cole submitted that Pinnel had accepted this lesser pursue in encompassing satisfaction of the amount owed to him . The court held that hire towards an amount due , which was lesser than what was due , did not maintain satisfaction for the amount due (Pinnel s Case 1600However , it accepted that furbish up made prior to the due date or at some other place , as specified by the creditor , stoold good satisfaction . Payment in dispel on its own could not be claimed to amount to sufferance with full satisfaction . As such , it is upto to the creditor to specify the communicatory style of payment and it is not the prer ogative of the debtor .

Since , the quittance had been on the agreed upon date , the court ruled that the debt had not been complete in full (Pinnel s Case , 1600The rule in Pinnel s flake , which had been in existence for more than a cardinal long time prior to this decision , states that from the perspective of habitual law no part - payment can constitute satisfaction for the a necessity for consideration to create a contract , it was nonrational to insist upon the provision of consideration with affection to the discharge of a contract...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper! .com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper