Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Part Payment And Promissory Estoppel Notes

GDL Law Notes > GDL Contract Law Notes

This is an extract of our Part Payment And Promissory Estoppel document, which we sell as part of our GDL Contract Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Revision: Contract

[CONSIDERATION, PART PAYMENT & PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL]
General rule: At common law, payment of a lesser sum does not discharge the obligation to pay the full amount

*

Foakes v Beer: There is no consideration for a promise to accept less, so it is not binding

*

Re Selectmove: company tried to argue Williams v Roffey - but If this applied then Foakes v Beer would always be circumvented, so judge argued that Foakes v Beer was too well established

*

Therefore: o

Promise to pay more -use Williams v Roffey

o

But promise to accept less - then must use Foakes v Beer

Exceptions to the Part Payment Rule The Common Law Pinnel's Case :

1. Different 'thing': - 'a hawk, a horse, or a robe' o

Confirmed in Sibree v Tripp: tender of a promissory note was a sufficient novelty to constitute consideration for the creditor's promise to accept a lesser sum

o

D & C Builders v Rees :part payment by cheque (negotiable instrument) was in no way better than paying the full amount in cash - not sufficiently new

2. Different 'place': needs to be an advantage of meeting in a different place - the advantage acts as good consideration

3. Different 'time' - earlier: money sooner is better than money later Welby v Drake : payment by a 3rd party

*

D's son owed the C PS18 - D's father then made agreement to pay it off, but for a lesser amount (PS9) o

Where a lesser amount is paid in satisfaction of a debt by a third party to that debt, the creditor cannot sue for the balance

o

Some cases have found fraud - e.g. CA Hirachand Punamchand v Temple - but breach of contract won't amount to fraud at CL unless promisor knew at the time of promising that he had no intention of keeping to promise

Promissory Estoppel: An equitable exception to the general rule 1

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Contract Law Notes.