part 2

• What happens if A pays part of a debt to B and B promises to release A from the balance?

  B is not bound by such a promise and may still sue for the balance of the debt.
• What is the general rule regarding part payment of debts?

  Part payment of a debt is not satisfaction of the debt.
• What was the outcome of Pinnel’s Case (1602)?

  The court held that payment of a lesser sum cannot satisfy a greater debt.
• In Foakes v Beer (1884), what did C claim after D paid part of the debt?

  C claimed £360 extra for interest owed according to the judgment debt.
• How did the House of Lords rule in Foakes v Beer regarding consideration for the agreement?

  The House of Lords upheld C’s claim, stating that part payment did not constitute consideration for C’s promise.
• What was the argument made by the company in Re Selectmove (1995)?

  The company argued that the Inland Revenue would gain a practical benefit from accepting tax arrears in installments.
• What was the conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Re Selectmove (1995)?

  The court held that there was no binding contract to pay in installments because no consideration had been given.
• What are the exceptions to the general rule regarding part payment of debts?

  1. Payment of a lesser sum before the due date with creditor's agreement is valid consideration.
  2. Payment or partial payment by a valid chattel with creditor's agreement is valid consideration.
  3. The doctrine of promissory estoppel applies if a promise is relied upon without consideration.
• What did the court clarify in Pinnel’s Case regarding payment before the due date?

  The court indicated that payment before the due date could be valid consideration if agreed upon by the creditor.
• What is considered valid consideration according to Pinnel’s Case when using a chattel for payment?

  A gift of a horse, hawk, or robe can be valid consideration if accepted by the creditor.
• What is the doctrine of promissory estoppel?

  It prevents a promisor from going back on a promise if the promisee has relied on it and it would be inequitable to do so.
• In Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877), what was the main issue regarding the promise made?

  The issue was whether the promise to accept reduced rent without consideration could be enforced.
• What was the outcome of Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947)?

  C was entitled to full rent for the last two quarters of 1945 despite accepting reduced rent during the war.
• What did Denning J state regarding the acceptance of reduced rent in Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947)?

  Denning J stated that accepting reduced rent during wartime meant C lost the right to claim for arrears of rent.
• What are the limitations of the doctrine of promissory estoppel as established in Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc (2001)?

  • It can only be used as a defense, not as a cause of action.
  • It requires the defendant to come to court with clean hands.
• What was the ruling in D&C Builders v Rees (1965) regarding promissory estoppel?

  The court upheld the builder's claim, stating that Mr. and Mrs. Rees could not rely on promissory estoppel due to their behavior.