For example, assume that Coasters has fallen on hard times and has been able to pay only $$1$ million on its account with Trackers. Therefore, $$500000$ is outstanding. Trackers agrees to accept $$300000$ from Coasters and write off the balance. According to traditional common law, Trackers can go back on its word and sue for the remaining $$200000$ because its promise to accept a smaller sum is gratuitous. There is no consideration from Coasters supporting Trackers$$s promise to accept less than what is owed. Since Coasters has a pre$-$existing legal duty to pay $$500000,$ paying $$300000$ is not consideration for Trackers$$s promise to forgive the balance. Put another way, Coasters is not giving Trackers anything in return for Trackers$$s promise, except a $$300000$ payment that it was obligated to make in any event.

In jurisdictions that have legislation making such agreements binding, the creditor cannot sue for the balance once she has received from the debtor the smaller amount promised. In jurisdictions without such legislation, the creditor$$s promise is not enforceable, under traditional analysis. The consideration rule remains in force so that, in order for the promise to be enforced, the creditor must give the promise under seal or receive something in return for her promise to accept less $($such as payment earlier than required$)\mathrm{.}63$ Another alternative for the debtor seeking to enforce the creditor$$s promise is to rely on promissory estoppel, if circumstances permit.

The varying status of how partially paid debts are handled across Canada illustrates two important aspects of contract law. First, provincial legislatures may intervene at any time to alter or override a common law rule governing contracts. Second, though largely uniform across the country, contract law is under provincial control and is therefore subject to important provincial variations.