Ps were builders who were owed money by D who knew that P was in financial trouble. They delayed paying and then offered a lesser amount or nothing, which was accepted due to the financial trouble and P gave a receipt for settlement of the debt. P then sued for the balance and CA allowed their claim.
Lord Denning (majority approach): There was no true accord/agreement since P was pressured into acceptance due to the threat of being paid nothing, as asserted by D. Had there been a true accord then P could not have claimed the full amount. However in this case there was no equitable reason for disentitling P from recovering the full amount. Winn LJ took a different approach (not considering estoppel doctrine) but came to same conclusion.
