Pinnel's Case Study

The rule in Pinnel’s case expresses the requirement for consideration in simple contracts. Pinnel’s case applies this rule strictly, and states that changing the contract by doing something less than what you were originally required to do, cannot amount to new consideration. Generally, the rule works sensibly and fairly, but there are some situations when it does not. The purpose of this essay is discussing this statement, and explain the circumstances in which courts see it as unfair to apply this rule. The rule in Pinnel’s case at common law is that part-payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise to forgo the balance. Thus, payment of a smaller sum will not discharge the duty to pay a higher sum. In pinnel’s case (1602),
Foakes v Beer is a case similar to Pinnel’s case. It is argued that nominal consideration is adequate; it's solely designed to point out that the promise is meant to be de jure enforceable. In the case of Foakes v Beer, there are in a debtor (Dr Foakes) and creditor (Mrs. Beer) relationship. Dr Foakes owed Beer a sum of money to Mrs. Beer about £2000, and he is unable to pay the full amount in a lump sum, awarded in damages from an earlier case. The parties agreed that if Dr Foakes paid £500 promptly and the remainder of the add by installments, then Mrs. Beer wouldn't take action at law. Dr Foakes eventually paid the debt, but over a period of time and not the interest, which might have accumulated since the date the award was created. Mrs. Beer sue Dr Foakes for the interest. However, Dr Foakes arguing that, Mrs. Beer cannot sue Dr Foakes for interest it is because Mrs. Beer had agreed that would not claim interest before. In defense, Dr Foakes claimed that the new agreement (payment of the sum in installments) cancelled the original obligation, and the Mrs. Beer had agree waived her right to claim the interest. Mrs. Beer claimed that the agreement was void since Dr Foakes offered no consideration. It is because Dr Foakes would not any prove to show any consideration and moving from him as the promisee. The main point of this case is that part payment of a debt on when after the due date is not good consideration for the creditors promise to not claim the balance. In my opinion, I think the case exists in fairness and injustice. For the fair side, Dr Foakes not have any evidence to prove Mrs. Beer promise not to sued him. The agreement may be enforced if there was consideration. The only consideration expressed changed into the price of $500 – which become part of a bigger debt already due. The charge of instalments couldn't be consideration except price of the $500 became consideration. The