Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I am not looking for anyone to answer my question for me, but simply to help point me in the right direction. I have some idea of where to begin, but I do not feel overly confident. I will begin with giving you the basis of my question, and how I am currently planning to answer it.

    B bought a boat from A last year for £1,000, intended to be paid in two instalments of £500. B did not pay the last instalment to A. The fact that B owed money to A was not disputed.

    A was sympathetic towards B, who had recently been laid off from her job soon after purchasing the boat from A. A stated that if B could pay half of the last instalment (£250) by the following Tuesday, he would excuse the remainder of the debt B owed.

    B paid the £250 on the following Monday, and gave A a bottle of wine “in consideration of his kindness”.

    On the Thursday B was successful with one of the job applications. On the first of the month she would be starting work with a much better salary.

    A became aware of B’s job and realised that B will likely earn more than him. B now wishes to claim the remainder of the money which she had originally agreed to pay for the boat.

    Advise A.

    I would begin with defining a contract, and identifying the elements of it, and that A and B have entered one. It is important to point out that because A and B have entered a contract, B has a duty to fulfil their obligation of that contract. Whether B provided fresh consideration for A’s acceptance of B’s part payment would then become the focus of my argument. Define consideration. Introduce the rule in Pinnel’s Case, Etc.

    I know that due to (Pinnel’s Case) the rule is that part payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise to forgo the balance. However, there are some exceptions to this rule:

    1) Part payment accepted on a date earlier than the due date. (Although B missed her initial due date for the second instalment, she paid one day earlier than when A stated he required the part payment) Does this constitute as an exception to the rule in Pinnel’s Case, or should I stick with the fact that she missed the initial due date?
    2) Chattel is accepted instead of money (“a horse, hawk, or a robe” may be more beneficial than money) B gave A a bottle of wine “in consideration of his kindness”. Would this simply qualify as a gift? If not, could this + the £250 actually equate to fresh consideration for B’s part payment to A?

    - If not, I would be able to argue that B did not provide consideration for A’s part payment in the first place, so the rule in Pinnel’s Case stands.

    -Promissory estoppel may prevent A from recovering the remainder of debt owed to him by B. A voluntarily accepted the agreement to accept a part payment, and it could be suggested that B did not take advantage of her financial circumstances as she never disputed that she did in fact owe money to A. (Collier v P & J Wright Holdings)
    -B would have a reliance upon her agreement with A, due to her financial situation. It is not clear whether B actually has improved her finances, or incurred other debt due to the belief that the debt with A had been dissolved.
    -Is it really just or equitable for A to go back on his word?

    Right now I would be inclined to advise A that due to these facts it would not be possible to recover his funds. If the wine amounts to consideration for a variation in A and B’s contract, an estoppel would not be necessary. If only the part payment is in question, then the estoppel may be able to take effect.

    However, I feel like I am missing something. Have I missed a main objective in this question? Any advice is very much appreciated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saiwa)
    I am not looking for anyone to answer my question for me, but simply to help point me in the right direction. I have some idea of where to begin, but I do not feel overly confident. I will begin with giving you the basis of my question, and how I am currently planning to answer it.

    B bought a boat from A last year for £1,000, intended to be paid in two instalments of £500. B did not pay the last instalment to A. The fact that B owed money to A was not disputed.

    A was sympathetic towards B, who had recently been laid off from her job soon after purchasing the boat from A. A stated that if B could pay half of the last instalment (£250) by the following Tuesday, he would excuse the remainder of the debt B owed.

    B paid the £250 on the following Monday, and gave A a bottle of wine “in consideration of his kindness”.

    On the Thursday B was successful with one of the job applications. On the first of the month she would be starting work with a much better salary.

    A became aware of B’s job and realised that B will likely earn more than him. B now wishes to claim the remainder of the money which she had originally agreed to pay for the boat.

    Advise A.

    I would begin with defining a contract, and identifying the elements of it, and that A and B have entered one. It is important to point out that because A and B have entered a contract, B has a duty to fulfil their obligation of that contract. Whether B provided fresh consideration for A’s acceptance of B’s part payment would then become the focus of my argument. Define consideration. Introduce the rule in Pinnel’s Case, Etc.

    I know that due to (Pinnel’s Case) the rule is that part payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise to forgo the balance. However, there are some exceptions to this rule:

    1) Part payment accepted on a date earlier than the due date. (Although B missed her initial due date for the second instalment, she paid one day earlier than when A stated he required the part payment) Does this constitute as an exception to the rule in Pinnel’s Case, or should I stick with the fact that she missed the initial due date?
    2) Chattel is accepted instead of money (“a horse, hawk, or a robe” may be more beneficial than money) B gave A a bottle of wine “in consideration of his kindness”. Would this simply qualify as a gift? If not, could this + the £250 actually equate to fresh consideration for B’s part payment to A?

    - If not, I would be able to argue that B did not provide consideration for A’s part payment in the first place, so the rule in Pinnel’s Case stands.

    -Promissory estoppel may prevent A from recovering the remainder of debt owed to him by B. A voluntarily accepted the agreement to accept a part payment, and it could be suggested that B did not take advantage of her financial circumstances as she never disputed that she did in fact owe money to A. (Collier v P & J Wright Holdings)
    -B would have a reliance upon her agreement with A, due to her financial situation. It is not clear whether B actually has improved her finances, or incurred other debt due to the belief that the debt with A had been dissolved.
    -Is it really just or equitable for A to go back on his word?

    Right now I would be inclined to advise A that due to these facts it would not be possible to recover his funds. If the wine amounts to consideration for a variation in A and B’s contract, an estoppel would not be necessary. If only the part payment is in question, then the estoppel may be able to take effect.

    However, I feel like I am missing something. Have I missed a main objective in this question? Any advice is very much appreciated.
    This looks, at a cursory glance, about right. I don't know that you need to go into much detail, if any, about the fact that they have a contract and what the elements of a contract are. This is so obvious in this question that it probably goes without saying.

    One thing you don't seem to have addressed is whether A actually accepted the wine as consideration for the debt, or whether B just threw it in. The fact that B calls it "consideration for kindness" does not necessarily mean it's consideration for the acceptance of less than the amount that was due. You do need to address whether the payment is early--I'm inclined to argue that it's not an early payment, as A could have sued for boc at any time after B failed to pay by the first deadline. Also, it's worth looking at Foakes v Beer, which is a substantially more recent case than Pinel, and is definitely in point here. Foakes is also a HL case, where Collier is a CA case, so you have to bear in mind the order of precedent.

    Also, remember when you're considering PE that you need to show reliance on the promise (High Trees). How might this condition be fulfilled?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you for the fast reply, your feedback is helpful. As far as detail goes, I need to write around 1500 words for it. I have a few weeks, but really want to get it out of the way. I won't go into so much detail about the contract, but will focus more on some of the points you mentioned. =)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have started answering this by addressing that the main issue is whether or not B provided adequate consideration for her part payment (she hasn't), in order to determine whether or not A is able to recover the money. Then I will apply the relevant law both for and against that, and come to my conclusion. Do you think this is in the right direction? Thanks so much in advance!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saiwa)
    I have started answering this by addressing that the main issue is whether or not B provided adequate consideration for her part payment (she hasn't), in order to determine whether or not A is able to recover the money. Then I will apply the relevant law both for and against that, and come to my conclusion. Do you think this is in the right direction? Thanks so much in advance!!
    That sounds like a sound approach--it might be worth considering in brief whether the result you reach this way is just/reasonable, and whether the law is uncertain/should be reformed. Make sure you keep that distinct from the factual question of how a court is likely to handle the relevant issues--which is what a problem question should primarily concern itself with.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks again, really helpful! =)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll push you in the right direction... Foakes v Beer
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saiwa)
    I am not looking for anyone to answer my question for me, but simply to help point me in the right direction. I have some idea of where to begin, but I do not feel overly confident. I will begin with giving you the basis of my question, and how I am currently planning to answer it.

    B bought a boat from A last year for £1,000, intended to be paid in two instalments of £500. B did not pay the last instalment to A. The fact that B owed money to A was not disputed.

    A was sympathetic towards B, who had recently been laid off from her job soon after purchasing the boat from A. A stated that if B could pay half of the last instalment (£250) by the following Tuesday, he would excuse the remainder of the debt B owed.

    B paid the £250 on the following Monday, and gave A a bottle of wine “in consideration of his kindness”.

    On the Thursday B was successful with one of the job applications. On the first of the month she would be starting work with a much better salary.

    A became aware of B’s job and realised that B will likely earn more than him. B now wishes to claim the remainder of the money which she had originally agreed to pay for the boat.

    Advise A.

    I would begin with defining a contract, and identifying the elements of it, and that A and B have entered one. It is important to point out that because A and B have entered a contract, B has a duty to fulfil their obligation of that contract. Whether B provided fresh consideration for A’s acceptance of B’s part payment would then become the focus of my argument. Define consideration. Introduce the rule in Pinnel’s Case, Etc.

    I know that due to (Pinnel’s Case) the rule is that part payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise to forgo the balance. However, there are some exceptions to this rule:

    1) Part payment accepted on a date earlier than the due date. (Although B missed her initial due date for the second instalment, she paid one day earlier than when A stated he required the part payment) Does this constitute as an exception to the rule in Pinnel’s Case, or should I stick with the fact that she missed the initial due date?
    2) Chattel is accepted instead of money (“a horse, hawk, or a robe” may be more beneficial than money) B gave A a bottle of wine “in consideration of his kindness”. Would this simply qualify as a gift? If not, could this + the £250 actually equate to fresh consideration for B’s part payment to A?

    - If not, I would be able to argue that B did not provide consideration for A’s part payment in the first place, so the rule in Pinnel’s Case stands.

    -Promissory estoppel may prevent A from recovering the remainder of debt owed to him by B. A voluntarily accepted the agreement to accept a part payment, and it could be suggested that B did not take advantage of her financial circumstances as she never disputed that she did in fact owe money to A. (Collier v P & J Wright Holdings)
    -B would have a reliance upon her agreement with A, due to her financial situation. It is not clear whether B actually has improved her finances, or incurred other debt due to the belief that the debt with A had been dissolved.
    -Is it really just or equitable for A to go back on his word?

    Right now I would be inclined to advise A that due to these facts it would not be possible to recover his funds. If the wine amounts to consideration for a variation in A and B’s contract, an estoppel would not be necessary. If only the part payment is in question, then the estoppel may be able to take effect.

    However, I feel like I am missing something. Have I missed a main objective in this question? Any advice is very much appreciated.
    Ive got a very similar question to yours, but im really confused whether A has to give the money back or not... :\
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    This looks, at a cursory glance, about right. I don't know that you need to go into much detail, if any, about the fact that they have a contract and what the elements of a contract are. This is so obvious in this question that it probably goes without saying.

    One thing you don't seem to have addressed is whether A actually accepted the wine as consideration for the debt, or whether B just threw it in. The fact that B calls it "consideration for kindness" does not necessarily mean it's consideration for the acceptance of less than the amount that was due. You do need to address whether the payment is early--I'm inclined to argue that it's not an early payment, as A could have sued for boc at any time after B failed to pay by the first deadline. Also, it's worth looking at Foakes v Beer, which is a substantially more recent case than Pinel, and is definitely in point here. Foakes is also a HL case, where Collier is a CA case, so you have to bear in mind the order of precedent.

    Also, remember when you're considering PE that you need to show reliance on the promise (High Trees). How might this condition be fulfilled?
    I think jjarvis is right on all counts. It sounds like you have the crux of your argument down, but like him I will ask you a question, but perhaps in a slightly different way. Since consideration must move from the promisee to the promisor, by her saying 'in consideration for taking a less amount'... did A accept this as a form of partial payment or did he accept this as a gift? If it is as a gift then he could go back and ask for his money, because PE suspends your rights it does not stop your right to getting all of your money, which goes to an issue of reliance/practical benefit. In Williams v Roffey the subcontractor provided a practical benefit, in High trees the claimant relied on the word of the defendant, same for the Pricy Council v Pau On case. Can B show similar reliance or practical benefit in her situation.
    Could you reasonably argue that she relied on his 'charity' in not asking for all of his money? If so then he is indeed estopped, if not he can still get his money back.

    Also to Lesbonic, I think Foakes v Beer is preceded by the Pinnell case.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    sorry for bringing this back from the dead, but it saves creating a new thread..

    my textbook claims that in Pinnel's case he was unsuccessful in claiming the balance of the unpaid debt. It claims it is because part payment was made before the full sum was due and thus sufficient consideration was gained on the creditors behalf.

    is the book wrong? Foakes and Beer doesnt really follow because Beer succeeded in her claim for the interest payment.

    although if part payment is made before the full amount is due (at the creditors request) this could be sufficient consideration to forego the rest of the payment?

    can someone please clear this issue up!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Well in fact Pinnel was able to claim the whole balance, but only because the defendant, one Cole, had pleaded his case on an incorrect ground (which was even more important in 1600 than now).

    But assuming that he hadn't done so, he would have succeeded because he paid the sum before it was due at the creditor's request. Foakes didn't pay anything before it was due, Mrs Beer had a judgment against him which meant that the whole sum was payable immediately. The two cases are opposite sides of the same coin:

    1) Pay part of the debt early at the creditor's request and that can be satisfaction of the whole (if the creditor accepts it as such).
    2) Pay part of the debt on the date it was due and that is not satisfaction of the whole debt.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    Well in fact Pinnel was able to claim the whole balance, but only because the defendant, one Cole, had pleaded his case on an incorrect ground (which was even more important in 1600 than now).

    But assuming that he hadn't done so, he would have succeeded because he paid the sum before it was due at the creditor's request. Foakes didn't pay anything before it was due, Mrs Beer had a judgment against him which meant that the whole sum was payable immediately. The two cases are opposite sides of the same coin:

    1) Pay part of the debt early at the creditor's request and that can be satisfaction of the whole (if the creditor accepts it as such).
    2) Pay part of the debt on the date it was due and that is not satisfaction of the whole debt.
    thank you so much, its cleared that issue up. seems as though my book is wrong! just one minor thing im unsure over... what do you mean he pleaded his case on an incorrect ground?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by High As A Kite)
    thank you so much, its cleared that issue up. seems as though my book is wrong! just one minor thing im unsure over... what do you mean he pleaded his case on an incorrect ground?
    Cole said that he offered his part payment, and that having done so, Pinnel accepted it as full satisfaction of the debt. Cole should have said that he offered the part payment as full satisfaction of the debt, and Pinnel accepted it as such. It's the sort of meaningless distinction that judges 400 years ago were fond of but could not possibly be relevant today.

    If you read about the history of the law, you will find lots of weird technicalities. For example, an action for breach of contract by doing nothing - nonfeaseance - originally didn't exist, an action for breach of contract by doing something incorrect - malfeasance - had to be brought by a writ of trespass vi et armis if its value was less than 40 shillings. Vi et armis meant 'with force and arms' leading to rather absurd looking claims - the classic one being (in reality) a breach of contract claim for a delivery of wine which had soured, which alleged that the defendants "with force and arms, namely with swords and bows and arrows, drew off a great part of the wine from the aforesaid tun and instead of the wine so drawn off they filled the tun with salt water so that all the aforesaid wine was destroyed." Clearly the defendants didn't actually use bows and arrows to do anything of the sort.

    Getting back to the subject, the only principle you need to know from that case is that part payment of a debt earlier than it is due, at the creditor's request, can be good consideration for its discharge. The fact that Pinnel got his money in any case because the defendant made some technical error of law is neither here nor there !
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    Cole said that he offered his part payment, and that having done so, Pinnel accepted it as full satisfaction of the debt. Cole should have said that he offered the part payment as full satisfaction of the debt, and Pinnel accepted it as such. It's the sort of meaningless distinction that judges 400 years ago were fond of but could not possibly be relevant today.
    arge. The fact that Pinnel got his money in any case because the defendant made some technical error of law is neither here nor there !

    oh I see the point of the case now, thanks a lot. quite interesting stuff!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Really? But what is the consideration?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the only principle you need to know from that case is that part payment of a debt earlier than it is due, at the creditor's request, can be good consideration for its discharge.

    Consideration might be provided if the creditor agrees to accept:

    We might as well forget about promissory estoppel.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.