Pinnel's Case

Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a, 77 ER 237, also known as Pinnel v Cole, is an important case in English contract law, on the doctrine of part performance. Sir Edward Coke reported the case. The case is authority for the proposition a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole.

Facts Pinnel sued Cole, in an action of debt upon a bond, for the sum of £8 10s. The defendant, Cole, argued he had, at Pinnel's request, tendered £5 2s 2d before the debt was due, and the plaintiff had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt.Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a, 77 ER 237.

Judgment The case reports the judgment as follows.

Pinnel's case was applied by Foakes v Beer and Jorden v Money .Jorden v Money 10 ER 868

Commentary Pinnel's case concerned the doctrine of Accord and satisfaction, rather than Consideration.J Gold, 'The Present Status of the Rule in Pinnel's case' (1941) 30 Ky LJ 72, 73; see also J Ames, 'Two Theories of Consideration - Part 2' (1899) 12(8) Harv LR 515, 522. The judgement makes no reference to consideration; this may be because the action of assumpsit (for which consideration in the absence of a deed was required) was distinct from an action for debt until Slade's Case.

In Bagge v Slade, Coke LCJ (the reporter of Pinnel's case) held that'...if a man be bound to another by a bill in 1000l and he pays unto him 500l in discharge of this bill, the which he accepts of accordingly, and doth upon this assume and promise to deliver up unto him his said bill of 1000l, this 500l is no satisfaction of the 1000l but yet this is good and sufficient to make a good promise, and upon a good consideration, because he hath paid mony,(s) five hundred pound, and he hath no remedy for this again.'Bagge v Slade (1613) 3 Bulst 162, 81 ER 137.Thus, Bagge v Slade was authority for the proposition that part payment of debt can be good consideration for the discharge of that debt.

Similarly, in Rawlins v Lockey, it was said that '30l can be no satisfaction of 60l yet to have the money in his hands without suit is a good consideration to maintain this action upon the promise'.Rawlins v Lockey (1639) 1 Vin Ab 308, pl 24. This distinction was maintained until Lord Ellenborough's judgment in Fitch v Sutton in which he held that part payment of a debt cannot be consideration.Fitch v Sutton (1804) 5 East 230, 232; 102 ER 1058. This conflation has been met with academic and judicial criticism.J Ames, 'Two Theories of Consideration - Part 2' (1899) 12(8) Harv LR 515, 525; B Reiter, 'Courts, Consideration, and Common Sense' (1977) 27 U Toronto LJ 439, fn 127.Hope v Johnston 45 SCL 135, 2 Rich 135 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1857); Seymour v Goodrich 80 Va 303, 304 (1885).

Exceptions to the Rule The case law has evolved over the years to create a number of exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case.

The exceptions to the rule in Pinnel's case include:

Payment accompanied by fresh consideration;Hartley v Ponsonby EngR 605 Prepayment of debt at the creditor's request; Payment of a lesser sum at another place at the creditor's request; A contract with creditors after insolvency of the debtor; The parties enter into a deed of release; and Promissory estoppel.Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KB 130

Pinnel's Case

Bron en licentie