Gina owes Hal 10,000, due on 30 June. On that date Hal agrees to accept 7,000 in full settlement and Gina pays it. Hal later sues for the balance. Applying Pinnel's Case and Foakes v Beer, what is the likely outcome?

Correct answer: A) Hal can recover the remaining 3,000, because part payment of a debt on the due date is not consideration for a promise to forgo the balance

Explanation

The rule in Pinnel's Case, affirmed in Foakes v Beer, is that payment of a smaller sum on the due date is no consideration for a promise to forgo the balance, so the larger debt is not discharged. The position would differ if some new element were introduced at the creditor's request, such as earlier payment or payment in a different form. The practical benefit principle in Williams v Roffey does not apply to part payment of debts (Re Selectmove). Promissory estoppel can exceptionally bar recovery of the balance, but only where it would be inequitable for the creditor to go back on the promise (D & C Builders v Rees), and nothing in the facts suggests that.