Penny v Cole; Pinnel's Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 77 E.R. 237
IN THE COMMON PLEAS.
Followed, Foakes v. Beer, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 605; Bidder v. Bridges, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 413.
5 oo.see.ma. pinnel's case 237 [117 a] pinnel's case. Trin. 44 Eliz. Rot. 501. In the Common Pleas. [Followed, Foakes v. Beer, 1884, 9 App. Gas. 605; Bidder v. Bridges, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 413.] Payment of a lesa sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole. The gift of a horse, hawk, robe, &c. in satisfaction, is good. Payment of part before the day, and acceptance, may be in satisfaction of the whale; so payment of part at a different place. The payment of part ought to be pleaded to be paid in full satisfaction; it is not sufficient to aver that it was accepted in full satisfaction. The manner of the tender, and of the payment, shall be directed by him who made them, not by him who accepts. *An acknowledgment of satisfaction by deed, is a good bar, without any thing received.* S. C. Moor. 677. See 3 Cases in Law, &c. 304. Lucas 224. 304. Pinnel brought an action of debt on a bond against Cole, of 161. for payment of 81. 10s. the llth day of Nov. 1600. The defendant pleaded, that he at the instance of the plaintiff, before the said day, sell. 1 Octob. anno 44. apud W. solvit yuerenti nl. 2s. 3d. quas quidern 51. '2s. Id. the plaintiff (a) accepted in full satisfaction of the 81. 10s. And it was resolved by the whole Court, that 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, (5) a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum (a) : but the gift of a horse, (c) hawk, or robe, &c. in satisfaction is good. For it shall be intended that a horse, hawk, or robe, fyc. might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money, in respect of some circumstance, or otherwise the plaintiff would not have accepted of it in satisfaction. But when the whole sum is due, by no intendment the acceptance of (a) parcel can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff: but in the case at Bar it was resolved, that the payment (a) Doct. pi. 267. Bac. Ab. Accord. & Sat. A. (6) Perk. sect. 749. Co. Lit. 212. b. (A) So acceptance of a security for a lesser sum cannot be pleaded in satisfaction of a similar security far a greater. Cumber v. Wane, 1 Strange, 426. and per Lord Ellenborough, Fitch v. Button, 5 East, 232.; "though that case was said by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gooi Seang Tuck v Tan Peng Loon and Another
-
D & C Builders Ltd v Rees
...by the settlement. He can the next day sue the debtor for the balance: and get judgment. The law was so stated in 1602 lay Lord Coke in Pinnel's case (1602) 5 Coke's Reports, p. 117a — and accepted in 1889 by the House of Lords in Foakes v. Beer (1884) 9 Appeal Cases, p. 8Now, suppose that ......
- Koh; Koh
-
Permanent TSB Plc formerly Irish Life and Permanent Plc v Walsh
... ... Mr Walsh, the plaintiff rightly contended that thanks to Pinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co. rep. 117a any such agreement (which the plaintiff denied) ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...Act: Open Court) [1997] 1 All ER 58, [1996] 2 All ER 765, [1996] 3 FCR 705, CA 124 Pinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a, Moore KB 677, 77 ER 237, CtCP 177 Polley v Warner Goodman & Streat (A Firm) [2003] EWCA Crim 1013, [2003] PNLR 784, [2003] All ER (D) 400 (Jun) 213 Porter v Magill; Weeks v......
-
Dispute resolution
...and Satisfaction by Way of Full Settlement Cheque” (2011) 27 Journal of Contract Law 119. 233 Pinnel’s Case (1603) 5 Coke’s Rep 117a [77 ER 237]; Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605; Bradford & Bingley plc v Rashid [2006] 1 WLR 2066 at 2091 [83], per Lord Mance. See also Mitchell v Paciic Da......
-
Consideration and Form
...satisfaction” might apply notwithstanding the absence of consideration. The doctrine of accord and satisfaction 208 (1602), 5 Co Rep 117, 77 ER 237 (CP). 209 See Stoljar, above note 2 at 119–21. 210 (1884), 9 App Cas 605 (HL). See generally M Lobban, “ Foakes v Beer (1884)” in C Mitchell & ......
-
Specific Performance – Exploring the Roots of ‘Settled Practice’
...example, the primary reason for the House of Lords in Foakes vBeer (1884) 9 App Cas605 not overruling Pinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a, 77 ER 237 in the context of the insufficiencyof consideration in respect of a promise to accept part payment in full settlement of a money debt. Seenow a......