Pinnel 's case - wikipedia Pinnel 's case Pinnel 's Case ( 1602 ) 5 Co. Rep. 117a, also known as Penny v Cole, is an important case in English contract law, on the doctrine of part performance. In it, Sir Edward Coke opined that a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole. Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 See also 4 Notes 5 References Facts Pinnel sued Cole, in an action of debt upon a bond, for the sum of £ 8 10s. The defendant, Cole, argued he had, at Pinnel 's request, tendered £ 5 2s 2d before the debt was due, and the plaintiff had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt. Judgment The case reports the judgment as follows. `` payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, can not be any satisfaction for the whole, because it appears to the Judges that by no possibility, a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum : but the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe, etc. in satisfaction is good. For it shall be intended that a horse, hawk, or robe, &c. might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money.... he 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 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. '' Pinnel 's case was followed by Foakes v Beer ( 1884 ) and Jorden v Money ( 1854 ). See also hide Consideration cases Dyer 's case ( 1414 ) 2 Hen V 5, 26 Bret v JS ( 1600 ) Cro Eliz 756 Lampleigh v Brathwait ( 1615 ) EWHC KB J 17 Pillans v Van Mierop ( 1765 ) 97 ER 1035 Stilk v Myrick ( 1809 ) EWHC KB J58 Shadwell v Shadwell ( 1860 ) EWHC CP J88 Callisher v Bischoffsheim ( 1870 ) LR 5 QB 449 Foakes v Beer ( 1884 ) UKHL 1 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co ( 1892 ) EWCA Civ 1 Combe v Combe ( 1952 ) EWCA Civ 7 Pao On v Lau Yiu Long ( 1979 ) UKPC 2 Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco ( 1989 ) QB 833 Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd ( 1989 ) EWCA Civ 5 Re Selectmove Ltd ( 1993 ) EWCA Civ 8 see Consideration in English law hide Estoppel cases Dillwyn v Llwellyn ( 1862 ) 4 De GF&J 517 Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1877 ) High Trees case ( 1947 ) KB 130 Combe v Combe ( 1952 ) D & C Builders v Rees ( 1965 ) Ogilvy v Hope Davies ( 1976 ) 1 All ER 683 Crabb v Arun DC ( 1975 ) Waltons Stores Ltd v Maher ( 1988 ) 164 CLR 387 Jennings v Rice ( 2002 ) Collier v P&MJ Wright ( Holdings ) Ltd ( 2007 ) Yeomans Row Management Ltd v Cobbe ( 2008 ) see Estoppel in English law English contract law Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd D&C Builders Ltd v Rees Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd Re Selectmove Ltd Notes Jump up ^ Coke, Edward ( 1826 ) ( 1604 ). Thomas, John Henry ; Fraser, John Farquhar, eds. The Reports of Sir Edward Coke. 3. Butterworth 's. pp. 238 -- 239. Retrieved 2008 - 10 - 11. Pinnel 's Case ( 1602 ) 5 Co Rep 117a Jump up ^ Foakes v Beer ( 1884 ) UKHL 1, 9 App Cas 605, ( 1883 - 84 ) LR 9 App Cas 605, ( 1884 ) 9 App Cas 605 Jump up ^ Jorden v Money ( 1854 ) 10 ER 868 References Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinnel%27s_Case&oldid=832598181 '' Categories : English contract case law 1602 in English law Edward Coke cases English consideration case law Talk Contents About Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu Edit links This page was last edited on 26 March 2018, at 22 : 56. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: what is the rule in pinnel's case
Answer: part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole