Law of Contract Consideration Part Payment of Debt .


72 views
Uploaded on:
Category: Product / Service
Description
Part Payment of Debt. Pinnel\'s Case (1602) A guarantee to acknowledge a section installment of an obligation, in release of the whole obligation is not legitimate thought . Part Payment of Debt. illustration :If An owes B an obligation of
Transcripts
Slide 1

Law of Contract Consideration Part Payment of Debt

Slide 2

Part Payment of Debt Pinnel\'s Case (1602) A guarantee to acknowledge a section installment of an obligation, in release of the whole debt is not substantial thought

Slide 3

Part Payment of Debt case : If An owes B an obligation of £200, and B consents to acknowledge £100 in full fulfillment of the obligation, B is not bound by his guarantee. He may accordingly sue for everything of his obligation.

Slide 4

Part Payment of Debt Pinnel\'s Case Facts : Cole owed Pinnel £8.50 which was due in eleventh Nov. At Pinnel ask for, Cole paid £5.11 on 01st October, which Pinnel accepted in full settlement of the obligation. Pinnel Sued Cole for the sum owed. Held : obiter, part installment in itself is not thought.

Slide 5

Part Payment of Debt Pinnel\'s case : Principle " part installment of a lesser total, on the day (that it is expected) can\'t be any satisfaction for the entire since it appears to the judges that by no possibility a lesser whole can be satisfaction to the petitioner for a more prominent sum.."

Slide 6

Part Payment of Debt Exception to the general administer : 1) If the loan boss acknowledges part-installment on a prior date than the due date. 2) If the leaser acknowledges asset instead of money. 3) If the bank acknowledges part installment in a better place, at the loan boss\' request, to that initially indicated.

Slide 7

Part Payment of Debt Pinnel\'s case was followed in Foakes v Beer (1884) Held : Dr. Foakes had not given any consideration… he had not done or promised to do anything that he was not as of now obliged to do. Control followed in taking after cases : Re Selectmove (1995) Ferguson v Davies (1996)

Slide 8

Part Payment of Debt Two extraordinary circumstances where a creditor can\'t backtrack on his promise even however thought is truant . 1) Part installment of an obligation by a third party. 2) Composition concurrences with creditors

Slide 9

Part Payment of Debt Part Payment of a Debt by an outsider Welby v Drake (1825) Cook v Lister (1863) Part installment by an outsider, if accepted by the loan boss in full settlement of the borrower\'s risk is a great protection, to a later activity by the lender.

Slide 10

Part Payment of Debt Welby v Drake (1825) Facts : The litigant owed the inquirer £18. The petitioner acknowledged £9 from the defendant\'s dad in full fulfillment. The petitioner then sued the litigant. Held : The petitioner fizzled in light of the fact that by suing his child he was conferring an extortion on the father. See likewise : Hirachand Punamchand v Temple (1911)

Slide 11

Part Payment of Debt Composition understandings (with leasers) Good v Cheesman (1831) Wood v Roberts (1818) Held : An account holder who can\'t fork over the required funds, may concur with his creditors, to pay each of them "dividend" and in this manner lesser wholes. On the off chance that they concurred they then can\'t sue the debtor, as it would be a misrepresentation on the other lenders.

Slide 12

Promissory estoppel Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) Held : Lord Denning\'s by his proportion, held that the petitioners were qualified for sue as the lease decrease was just intended to apply for the time of war. Obiter, he said that the claimants would have been estopped in value on the off chance that they had made the claim during the war.

Slide 13

Part Payment of Debt What is Estoppel ? " a lead where a man is counteracted from precluding the presence from securing actualities, which he himself has beforehand asserted". What is promissory estoppel ? " The promissor will be estopped from denying the presence of such guarantees and won\'t be permitted to act inconsistently from any such assetions he may have made, as to his future lead.

Slide 14

Part Payment of Debt Promissory Estoppel High Trees Principle : " a guarantee to acknowledge a littler sum in release of a bigger aggregate, if followed up on, is official, notwithstanding the nonappearance of thought "

Slide 15

Part Payment of Debt Requirements that must be met before precept of promissory estoppel might be connected. 1) There must be clear and unambiguous statement by the promisor that his strict lawful rights won\'t be upheld. 2) The promisse more likely than not acted in reliance on the guarantee . 3) It must be unjust for the promisor to back on his guarantee.

Slide 16

Statement that legitimate rights won\'t be implemented 1) There must be clear and unambiguous explanation by the promisor that his strict lawful rights won\'t be authorized. The Scaptrade (1983) Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) Statement can be suggested or by conduct.

Slide 17

Promisee more likely than not followed up on dependence 1) Promisee more likely than not followed up on reliance on the guarantee. The promisee more likely than not changed his position to his etriment,.meaning put in more terrible position if guarantee is revoked, or modified his position in some way. Ajayi v Brisco (1964) The postchaser (1982)

Slide 18

Inequitable for promisor to do a reversal on guarantee The promisor can resile from his promise or rather pull back from his promise, on the off chance that it is fair.

Slide 19

Part Payment of Debt Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, is a " Shield and not a sword" Does not permit another reason for activity, where no reason for activity existed . Combe v Combe (1951) Held : C/A , held that spouse gave no consideration for the husband\'s guarantee, therefore she couldn\'t succeed. High tree\'s standard was not applied.

Slide 20

Promissory estoppel Does precept suspend or stifle the privileges of the promissor? Apparatus Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd (1955) D & C Builders v Rees (1965) Held : Creditors may continue strict rights on pulling out that they wish to be paid the full sum and afterward permitting a reasonable time for the indebted person to go along. … so standard does not stifle obligations.

Recommended
View more...