Here is the problem question.
Nicky is a freelance writer and works from home where she depends on her home computer. She is currently ghost writing the autobiography of Tom Jerry, a well known footballer, and has a deadline from the publishers of the 30th June. Her computer breaks down on 15th June and unless it can be repaired very quickly she will lose a number of draft chapters which will make it impossible to finish by her deadline in two weeks. She has a service contract with PC Correct which guarantees repair within ten working days. She phones Peter at PC Correct and promises him an extra £500 if he gets the computer working within 3 working days. Peter comes out the following day and has the computer working within 24 hours.
Meanwhile, the Daily Scan, which is to serialise extracts from the book, had also promised Peter £1000 if he can get the computer repaired within a week but they ultimately refuse to pay him saying that he was contracted to do it all along.
Once the computer is repaired, Nicky tells Peter that she is currently short of funds and can’t pay £500. Peter says he will accept £200 in the circumstances. Nicky gives him £200 and says, given his flexible attitude, she is also giving him some signed photos of Tom Jerry which will be worth quite a bit. Next month Peter learns that Nicky has been paid half a million pounds for writing the book and that the Daily Scan’s sales have doubled whilst they serialise it. He now wishes to claim the £1000 from the Daily Scan and also the £300 balance from Nicky.
Advise Peter..
........
This scenario arises a few issues and they are in regards to part-payment of debt, performance of an existing contractual duty and promissory estoppel and that is if the requirements within the Pinnel’s case are not met.
Can someone please enlighten me on the issue whether Nicky’s signed photos amount to one of the three requirements set out in the Pinnel’s case ( payment by different means).
I’m leaning towards the argument that Peter can recover the outstanding money because it seems as though she gave him the photos as gratitude rather than as a fresh consideration and it seems like he did not accept them in satisfaction of discharging the whole debt.
If this is correct and Peter is able to recover the money he may not be however under promissory estoppel if she can prove that she had relied on his promise.
Am I on the right lines here?