Pinnel's Case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 |
[edit] Facts
The plaintiff sued the defendant for the sum of £8 10s. The defence was based on the fact that the defendant had, at the plaintiff's request, tendered £5-2s-6d before the debt was due, which the plaintiff had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt.
[edit] Judgment
The rule in Pinnel's Case is that:[1]
| “ | 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... [as] more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money. | ” |
[edit] See also
- English contract law
- Stilk v Myrick (1809) SC 6 Esp 129
- Foakes v Beer [1884] 9 A.C. 605
- Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
- Williams v Roffey Bros [1991] 1 QB 1
- Collier v Wright Ltd
- Couldery v Bartrum (1881) 19 Ch D 394 at 399, Sir George Jessel MR, "According to English common law a creditor might accept anything in satisfaction of his debt except a less amount of money. He might take a horse, or a canary, or tomtit if he chose, and that was accord and satisfaction; but, by a most extraordinary peculiarity of the English common law he could not take 19 shillings and sixpence in the pound; that was nudum pactum."
[edit] Notes
- ^ a b Coke, Edward (1826) [1604]. Thomas, John Henry and Fraser, John Farquhar. ed. The Reports of Sir Edward Coke. 3. Butterworth's. pp. 238–239. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DlYDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PRA8-PA238,M1. Retrieved 2008-10-11. "Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a"
