Issue 1: whether Percy can enforce the monthly payments from Dennis as promised.
issue 2: whether Hannibal is entitled to the remaining amount of the debt.
issue 3: whether Percy is required to pay James the remaining 5000 pounds owed.
Definition of consideration is required to be provided in order to Advise Percy as to his legal position.
As stated in Dunlop v Selfridge, consideration is the price for which the promise of another is bought.
And in addition as stated by Lush J in Currie v Misa, a valuable consideration must consist of a
forbearance.
In relation to the first issue
It is required to discuss whether the performance of Percy settling down can be sufficient to amount to
consideration. For this, it is required to discuss the rule of consideration that the consideration need not
be adequate but must be sufficient. The case which illustrated the principle was the case of Thomas v
Thomas in which it was held that the payment of 1 pound amounted to consideration, however in White
v Bluett the court held that stop complaining does not provide was not sufficient to amount to a
consideration.
On the facts, the promise of Dennis to make a monthly payment of 2000 pounds was made on the basis
of Percy’s settling down. However, settling down may not be sufficient to amount to consideration of
the monthly payment as it does not provide any value to Dennis nor a forbearance on Percy’s part. Thus
Percy is not in a position to enforce the monthly payments, in addition on the facts, it was shown that he
did not in fact settle down as he then borrowed 10000 pounds from James. Thus even if the settling
down of Percy can be sufficient to consideration, Percy by borrowing money automatically deems the
promise not valid as the act of Percy borrowing money does not amount to settling down.
Thus Percy is advised that he is unable to enforce the money payments as promised by Dennis.
in relation to the second issue
it required to discuss the rule of part payment of a debt not amounting consideration. The rule was seen
illustrated in Pinnel’s Case and Foakes v Beer in which it was held that a lesser payment of the debt will
not amount to consideration. However, as stated in Pinnel’s, payment done in an earlier date, chattel
provided with the lesser payment and payment done in a different area; or payment made by a third
party as provided in Hirachand v Punamchand, is sufficient to discharge the amount owed.
On the facts, the lesser payment of the debt was done by Dennis, a third party. Thus if following the
general rule stated in Pinnel’s and Foakes, the payment would not discharge Percy from the remaining
amount owed. However following the exception in Hirachand, the payment made by Dennis, a third
party will be sufficient to amount to good consideration to discharge the remaining amount.
Thus Percy is advised that he is not required to pay Hannibal the remaining amount owed.
issue 2: whether Hannibal is entitled to the remaining amount of the debt.
issue 3: whether Percy is required to pay James the remaining 5000 pounds owed.
Definition of consideration is required to be provided in order to Advise Percy as to his legal position.
As stated in Dunlop v Selfridge, consideration is the price for which the promise of another is bought.
And in addition as stated by Lush J in Currie v Misa, a valuable consideration must consist of a
forbearance.
In relation to the first issue
It is required to discuss whether the performance of Percy settling down can be sufficient to amount to
consideration. For this, it is required to discuss the rule of consideration that the consideration need not
be adequate but must be sufficient. The case which illustrated the principle was the case of Thomas v
Thomas in which it was held that the payment of 1 pound amounted to consideration, however in White
v Bluett the court held that stop complaining does not provide was not sufficient to amount to a
consideration.
On the facts, the promise of Dennis to make a monthly payment of 2000 pounds was made on the basis
of Percy’s settling down. However, settling down may not be sufficient to amount to consideration of
the monthly payment as it does not provide any value to Dennis nor a forbearance on Percy’s part. Thus
Percy is not in a position to enforce the monthly payments, in addition on the facts, it was shown that he
did not in fact settle down as he then borrowed 10000 pounds from James. Thus even if the settling
down of Percy can be sufficient to consideration, Percy by borrowing money automatically deems the
promise not valid as the act of Percy borrowing money does not amount to settling down.
Thus Percy is advised that he is unable to enforce the money payments as promised by Dennis.
in relation to the second issue
it required to discuss the rule of part payment of a debt not amounting consideration. The rule was seen
illustrated in Pinnel’s Case and Foakes v Beer in which it was held that a lesser payment of the debt will
not amount to consideration. However, as stated in Pinnel’s, payment done in an earlier date, chattel
provided with the lesser payment and payment done in a different area; or payment made by a third
party as provided in Hirachand v Punamchand, is sufficient to discharge the amount owed.
On the facts, the lesser payment of the debt was done by Dennis, a third party. Thus if following the
general rule stated in Pinnel’s and Foakes, the payment would not discharge Percy from the remaining
amount owed. However following the exception in Hirachand, the payment made by Dennis, a third
party will be sufficient to amount to good consideration to discharge the remaining amount.
Thus Percy is advised that he is not required to pay Hannibal the remaining amount owed.
