Law of Contract$-$ Consideration

Question $(2$b$)$

The rule in Pinnel$$s case states that $$part payment of a debt on the due date is not sufficient consideration to discharge the full debt$.$ Discuss how the doctrine of $$equitable estoppel$$ has been invoked by the courts to mitigate the harshness of this rule. $(10$ marks$)$

Guide To Answering Question $2($b$)$

$1.$ The introduction should state that the doctrine of $$equitable estoppel$$ was introduced to mitigate the harsh common law rule in $$Pinnel$$s case and say what the rule in Pinnel$$s case is about $[$see Topic $7$B$,$ slide $27].$

N$.$B$.$ It$$s not necessary to set out the details of the Pinnel$$s case but you must state the rule that was established in that case.

$2.$ Next, explain the doctrine of $$equitable estoppel$[$see Topic $7$B$,$ slide $28].$

$3.$ Next, explain how the doctrine of $$equitable estoppel$$ was illustrated in the case Central London Property Trust v High Trees House $(1947),$ or $($the High Trees case$),$ by setting out the case in detail $[$see Topic $7$B$,$ slides $29-31].$

$4.$ Next, discuss the two $(2)$ main principles regarding the $$effects$$ of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, that is$,$it is only suspensory$$ and that $$it acts as a shield and not a sword$.[$see Topic $7$B$,$ slide $32]$; and the case of Combe v$.$ Combe $(1951)$ as it relates to the latter effect. Discuss this case in detail $($but only briefly summarise the ruling of the court at first instance$)-[$see Topic $7$B$,$ slides $33-35].$