An exception to the rule in Pinnel's case?

NavyandBlue

In the latest edition of Clarke on Contract, it states in the chapter on consideration that one exception to the rule in Pinnel's case (where it was held that if a creditor agreed to accept a lesser sum of money from the debtor in discharge of the later sum, this promise is not binding and the creditor can still recover the outstanding amount from the debtor) is:

If a new element is introduced into the relationship of debtor and creditor the promise will be binding, eg Instead of paying €100 that X owes to Y, X offers a new book to Y and Y agrees to accept the book in full satisfaction of the debt this new element will suffice as consideration even if the value of the object is €50.

However, in Clarke's book there is no case mentioned which backs up this assertion. Is anyone aware of any English or Irish case where this supposed exception was accepted by the court? I was advised to look at Re Selectmove and Williams v Roffey but I could not find anything in these judgments which backs this up.

Any help is greatly appreciated

Tom Young

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055152416&highlight=pinnel

subrosa

Paul Anthony McDermott cites Morans v Armstrong (1840) Arm Mac Og 25 as authority for the exception.

MagicSean

subrosa wrote: »

Paul Anthony McDermott cites Morans v Armstrong (1840) Arm Mac Og 25 as authority for the exception.

Best lecturer I ever had.

Goesague

k_mac wrote: »

Best lecturer I ever had.

I've had better. A lot better!

234

NavyandBlue wrote: »

In the latest edition of Clarke on Contract, it states in the chapter on consideration that one exception to the rule in Pinnel's case (where it was held that if a creditor agreed to accept a lesser sum of money from the debtor in discharge of the later sum, this promise is not binding and the creditor can still recover the outstanding amount from the debtor) is:

If a new element is introduced into the relationship of debtor and creditor the promise will be binding, eg Instead of paying €100 that X owes to Y, X offers a new book to Y and Y agrees to accept the book in full satisfaction of the debt this new element will suffice as consideration even if the value of the object is €50.

However, in Clarke's book there is no case mentioned which backs up this assertion. Is anyone aware of any English or Irish case where this supposed exception was accepted by the court? I was advised to look at Re Selectmove and Williams v Roffey but I could not find anything in these judgments which backs this up.

Any help is greatly appreciated

This thread is a year old tomorrow but I couldn't resist since I'm researching this area at the moment. The exception is contained in Pinnel's Case itself where the report refers to "the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe, etc" as satisfying a partly-unpaid debt. Here's the link to the report on Google Books, go to page 238.