Part Payment C promised to accept lesser sum of the debt but later sue to claim full amount-Justify to claim

back the full amount as payment of a lesser sum on the [due] day in the satisfaction of a greater cannot be any satisfaction of the whole.- Pinnels case Extra Exception 1: Part payment to many creditors and one of creditor later want to claim full amount- C cannot claim the full amount as . creditor who sues for full amount will commit a fraud to another creditorsWood v Robarts Exception %: &r'(ment) PE can be raised* Lord "ennin( (in +i(, $rees case-: Promise to accept smaller sum if acted upon will binding e en absence of consideration 7hy 1ughes [8he case which based by 1igh 8rees] not )uote in %oakes &eer (part pa!ment iss'e%oakes &eer ,193- decided : years afters. ' en in %oakes" they felt that Pinnel case principle too rigid but they ne er mentioned about 1ughes Lord "ennin( .R in " / 0 B'ilders 7here there has been a true accord 1 'nder 2,ic, t,e creditor oluntarily agrees to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction1 and t,e debtor acts upon that accord by paying the lesser sum and t,e creditor accepts it" then it is ine)uitable for the creditor afterwards to insist on the balance. 0ollier v P3 / .343 Wri(,t (+oldin(s- Ltd ( 556 (1- a debtor offers to pay part onl! of t,e amo'nt ,e o2es7 ( - t,e creditor oluntarily accepts that offer" and (#- in reliance on the creditor;s acceptance" t,e debtor pays that part of the amount he owes in full" the creditor will" by irtue of the doctrine of promissory estoppel" be bound to accept that sum in full and final satisfaction of t,e 2,ole debt P' has e(tinguished the creditor;s right to the balance of the debt. 1owe er" this case only ruling whether ! had the estoppel as the defence but not whether part payment can be e(tinguish rights. <o" although it is clearly mentioned" maybe it cannot be a strong authority. 2ust ha e true accord to e(tinguish right but not only to suspend 0 Creditor had obtained a =udgment by consent against three partners of whom debtor was one. Partners; liability was =oint. 9ther partner went bankrupt and Judge doubt if there was any true accord in this case because the true construction of the promise or representation may well be that there was only an agreement to suspend the e(ercise of the creditor;s rights" not to forgo them permanently. 0ollier v P3 / .343 Wri(,t (+oldin(s- Ltd

Exception : /rd party pay part No consideration pro ided by payment on behalf of debtor !" so C allow to claim- Foakes to creditor and creditor later want to claim full amount- C v Beer cannot claim full amount as rd he will commit fraud to the / party- Welb! v "arke ! who pay for part payment argued that Creditor had the #practical benefit$- C still can claim the full amount as there Exception #: !ebtor pay part payment by negotiable is no precedent to raise instrument and later creditor practical benefit and it will want to claim full amount- C against %oakes &eer- Re cannot claim full amount as Selectmove Ltd Negotiable security 0 sufficient consideration.Sibree v $ripp '(ception if re)uested by creditor * Part payment before the 1owe er" part due date payment by che)ue is not considered as sufficient +ood ,horse" hawk or consideration robe - tendered ,!ay 2c3ea 4556-. instead of money Part payment accepted at a different place o (if re)uested by debtor" then there is no any benefit to creditor or no detriment to debtor Pinnels case 3ord !enning* Che)ue same as cash.