''Pinnel's case'' concerned the doctrine of
Accord and satisfaction, rather than
Consideration. The judgement makes no reference to consideration; this may be because the action of assumpsit (for which consideration in the absence of a deed was required) was distinct from an action for debt until
Slade's Case. In
Bagge v Slade,
Coke LCJ (the reporter of ''Pinnel's case'') held that'...if a man be bound to another by a bill in 1000l and he pays unto him 500l in discharge of this bill, the which he accepts of accordingly, and doth upon this assume and promise to deliver up unto him his said bill of 1000l, this 500l is no satisfaction of the 1000l but yet this is good and sufficient to make a good promise, and upon a good consideration, because he hath paid mony,(s) five hundred pound, and he hath no remedy for this again.'Thus,
Bagge v Slade was authority for the proposition that part payment of debt can be good consideration for the discharge of that debt. Similarly, in
Rawlins v Lockey, it was said that '30l can be no satisfaction of 60l yet to have the money in his hands without suit is a good consideration to maintain this action upon the promise'. This distinction was maintained until
Lord Ellenborough's judgment in
Fitch v Sutton in which he held that part payment of a debt cannot be consideration. This conflation has been met with academic and judicial criticism. ==Exceptions to the Rule==