- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
MikeLittle.
MikeLittle.-
Posts
-
Eunice03
- Topics: 45
- Replies: 38
- ☆☆
75 In contract law, the ‘part?payment problem’ refers to the general rule that payment of a
smaller sum does not discharge a debt of a greater amount.
Which of the following is NOT an exception to this rule?
A Where payment is made by a third party
B Where there is accord and satisfaction
C Where the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel applies
D Where both parties agree to a lower sum in full and final settlementANS-D
Good day sir,I don’t understand why the answer is D and not C. I’ll appreciate if you can explain.Thank you
MikeLittle
- Topics: 26
- Replies: 22589
- ☆☆☆☆☆
Where this is accord and satisfaction, then there is consideration moving both ways
When the situation is one party agreeing to receive a lower sum, what has the other party given in consideration for the first party’s acceptance of the lower amount?
Does that explain it for you?
Eunice03
- Topics: 45
- Replies: 38
- ☆☆
Yes it does.Thank you
MikeLittle
- Topics: 26
- Replies: 22589
- ☆☆☆☆☆
Eunice, I’m sorry. I’ve just read the thread again and see that my answer missed the question!
You asked why the answer was D and not C and my post justified answer B and missed answer C completely
The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel IS an exception to the rule that states that part payment of a smaller sum does not get good discharge
‘Where a promise is given by one party, and acted upon, the promisor cannot subsequently go back on that promise to the detriment of the promisee’
That was the finding in the High Trees House case and firmly established the exception of part payment of a smaller sum CAN get good discharge in these circumstances
Is that better?
Eunice03
MikeLittle- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.