- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hello!
I’m getting myself very confused.
With regards to the exceptions, I understand that settlement before due date can achieve full discharge (as you are getting the benefit of having the money earlier) – surely this is the case for Pinnell as Cole had tendered the part payment before the debt was due?
How comes Pinnell was entitled to sue?
Many thanks in advance,
SophieHere’s a relevant extract from the judgement …
“…… he (Cole, the defendant) did not plead that he had paid the 5l. 2s. 2d. in full satisfaction (as by the law he ought) but pleaded the payment of part generally; and that the plaintiff (Pinnel) accepted it in full satisfaction. And always the manner of the tender and of the payment shall be directed by him who made the tender or payment, and not by him who accepts it. And for this cause judgment was given for the plaintiff.”
In plain English, the action of paying early was at the instigation of Cole and not at the request of Pinnel
If it had been Pinnel that had said to Cole “Hey Cole, you know that 8l. 10s. that you owe me? Is there any chance that you could let me have 5l. 2s. 2d. now and we’ll call the debt fully discharged?” then the decision would likely have been against Pinnel and in favour of Cole
The key here is that it was Cole that suggested the early settlement and not Pinnel
Is that better for you both?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.