Hirachand Punumchand v Temple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hirachand Punamchand -v- Temple
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg
Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Full case name Hirachand Punumchand -v- Richard Durand Temple
Decided 1911
Citation(s) [1911] 2 KB 330
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Fletcher Moulton LJ, Vaughan Williams LJ
accord and satisfaction

Hirachand Punamchand -v- Temple [1911] 2 KB 330 is often cited as one of the exceptions to the accord and satisfaction rules established under Foakes v Beer, which in this case involves a part payment of a debt made not by the debtor, but a 3rd party.


The defendant, Richard Durand Temple, [1880 - 1962] (whom later inherited the title of 3rd Baronet from his father) a British army officer in India - a lieutenant in the 60th Rifles had gotten indebted to a moneylender to the position where he found he was unable to repay the debt. In a seemingly cunning move at the time by the moneylender (although surely later regretted doing so), suggested that the debtor contact his father, Sir Richard Carnac Temple, 2nd Baronet, and ask him to pay the debt for him.

Sir Richard in reply, got his solicitors to send the moneylender a cheque for 1,500 rupees, which was less than the full amount owed, with a letter attached that this was tendered as a full settlement of his son’s account.

In a case of wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too, the moneylender both cashed the cheque, then proceeded to sue the debtor for the remaining balance.


The Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant was not liable for the remaining balance owed to the moneylender. Fletcher Moulton LJ said in the ruling:

To sum up, had the debtor here had tendered the part payment as full settlement, as occurred in Foakes v Beer, it us unlikely that the creditor would not be able to pursue the debtor for the balance. But because here the settlement offer came from a 3rd party (the debtors father) and not the debtor himself, meant the creditor, after effectively accepting the settlement offer, could not also claim the remaining balance from the debtor.