Pinnel's Case [1602]
Share
Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co Rep 117a, also known as Penny v Cole, is a leading case in English contract law that establishes the doctrine of part performance. Sir Edward Coke, in rendering judgment, asserted that a part payment of a debt could not discharge the obligation to pay the entire amount owed.
Pinnel sued Cole in an action of debt upon a bond for the sum of £8 10s. Cole argued that he had, at Pinnel's request, tendered £5 2s 2d before the debt was due, and Pinnel had accepted this amount as full satisfaction for the entire debt.
The judgment, as reported, states that the payment of a lesser sum on the due date cannot be satisfaction for the whole debt. However, the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe in satisfaction is considered valid because it can be presumed to be more beneficial to the creditor than the equivalent money. The court emphasised that Cole did not plead the payment in full satisfaction, and judgment was given for the plaintiff.
Pinnel's Case set a precedent and was followed by subsequent cases, including Foakes v Beer [1884] and Jorden v Money [1854]. Over time, exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's Case have evolved:
If a party makes a promise and the other party relies on it to their detriment, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may apply, as in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947].
Pinnel's Case, while establishing a general rule, also recognises the need for flexibility in specific situations, leading to the development of these exceptions over time.
Pinnel sued Cole in an action of debt upon a bond for the sum of £8 10s. Cole argued that he had, at Pinnel's request, tendered £5 2s 2d before the debt was due, and Pinnel had accepted this amount as full satisfaction for the entire debt.
The judgment, as reported, states that the payment of a lesser sum on the due date cannot be satisfaction for the whole debt. However, the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe in satisfaction is considered valid because it can be presumed to be more beneficial to the creditor than the equivalent money. The court emphasised that Cole did not plead the payment in full satisfaction, and judgment was given for the plaintiff.
Pinnel's Case set a precedent and was followed by subsequent cases, including Foakes v Beer [1884] and Jorden v Money [1854]. Over time, exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's Case have evolved:
- A payment accompanied by additional benefits or consideration may be considered valid, as in Hartley v Ponsonby [1857].
- If the creditor requests prepayment, it might be considered valid satisfaction, as in Foakes v Beer [1884]
- If the creditor agrees to accept a lesser sum at a different place, it might be valid, as also in Foakes v Beer [1884].
- In certain circumstances, agreements with creditors after the debtor's insolvency may be recognised.
- A formal deed of release can discharge the debt.
If a party makes a promise and the other party relies on it to their detriment, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may apply, as in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947].
Pinnel's Case, while establishing a general rule, also recognises the need for flexibility in specific situations, leading to the development of these exceptions over time.
