Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a,[1] also known as Penny v Cole, is an important case in Englishcontract law, on the doctrine of part performance. In it, Sir Edward Coke opined that a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole.
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.[citation needed]
Judgmentedit
The case reports the judgment as follows.
payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it appears to the Judges that by no possibility, a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum: but the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe, etc. in satisfaction is good. For it shall be intended that a horse, hawk, or robe, might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money. ... he did not plead that he had paid the 5l. 2s. 2d. in full satisfaction (as by the law he ought) but pleaded the payment of part generally; and that the plaintiff accepted it in full satisfaction. And always the manner of the tender and of the payment shall be directed by him who made the tender or payment, and not by him who accepts it. And for this cause judgment was given for the plaintiff.
Pinnel's case was followed by Foakes v Beer [1884][2] and Jorden v Money [1854].[3]
Exceptions to ruleedit
The case law has evolved over the years to create a number of exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case.[4]
The exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case include:
^Coke, Edward (1826) [1604]. Thomas, John Henry; Fraser, John Farquhar (eds.). The Reports of Sir Edward Coke. Vol. 3. Butterworth's. pp. 238–239. Retrieved 11 October 2008. Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a
^ abcFoakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1, 9 App Cas 605, (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605, (1884) 9 App Cas 605 (16 May 1884)
pinnel, case, 1602, 117a, also, known, penny, cole, important, case, english, contract, doctrine, part, performance, edward, coke, opined, that, part, payment, debt, could, extinguish, obligation, whole, contents, facts, judgment, exceptions, rule, also, notes. Pinnel s Case 1602 5 Co Rep 117a 1 also known as Penny v Cole is an important case in English contract law on the doctrine of part performance In it Sir Edward Coke opined that a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 Exceptions to rule 4 See also 5 Notes 6 ReferencesFacts editPinnel 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 citation needed Judgment editThe case reports the judgment as follows payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater cannot be any satisfaction for the whole because it appears to the Judges that by no possibility a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum but the gift of a horse hawk or robe etc in satisfaction is good For it shall be intended that a horse hawk or robe might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money he did not plead that he had paid the 5l 2s 2d in full satisfaction as by the law he ought but pleaded the payment of part generally and that the plaintiff accepted it in full satisfaction And always the manner of the tender and of the payment shall be directed by him who made the tender or payment and not by him who accepts it And for this cause judgment was given for the plaintiff Pinnel s case was followed by Foakes v Beer 1884 2 and Jorden v Money 1854 3 Exceptions to rule editThe case law has evolved over the years to create a number of exceptions to the rule in Pinnel s case 4 The exceptions to the rule in Pinnel s case include Payment accompanied by fresh consideration 5 Prepayment of debt at the creditor s request 2 Payment of a lesser sum at another place at the creditor s request 2 A contract with creditors after insolvency of the debtor The parties enter into a deed of release and Promissory estoppel 6 See also editEnglish contract law Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd D amp C Builders Ltd v Rees Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd Re Selectmove LtdNotes edit Coke Edward 1826 1604 Thomas John Henry Fraser John Farquhar eds The Reports of Sir Edward Coke Vol 3 Butterworth s pp 238 239 Retrieved 11 October 2008 Pinnel s Case 1602 5 Co Rep 117a a b c Foakes v Beer 1884 UKHL 1 9 App Cas 605 1883 84 LR 9 App Cas 605 1884 9 App Cas 605 16 May 1884 Jorden v Money 1854 10 ER 868 Davis Wayne 1 May 2020 Part Payment of a Debt The Rule in Pinnel s Case Stonegate Legal Retrieved 8 July 2020 Hartley v Ponsonby 1857 EngR 605 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947 KB 130References edit Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Pinnel 27s Case amp oldid 1165052931, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
