In this respect, clients can pay in full or incur partial payment processes to obtain the same products1. From this perspective, the willing buyer-seller technique relies on participant’s ability to come to an agreement on which method to apprehend a decision.
When a debtor makes partial payment to a creditor, who has the right to end the agreement? In an event that both decide to settle before completion of the contract, who takes responsibility? The belief that the law binds a promisor to his promises raises many questions on the boundary of such aptitudes. Agreements are very important; nevertheless, the main question remains how to address disputes in contracts2. According to promissory estoppel, any creditor who formally or informally notifies a debtor of forgiving a commitment has no right to claim the same. In the case of Orlando and Kate, the latter chose a system of payment for buying a car worth $2500 by compensating in double instalments of $1250. Certainly, this pegged to her income that could not allow her pay a lump some for the same product. The mutual agreement between the two; however, did not materialize after Kate lost her job hence failing to pay for the second instalment. Worried about making losses, Orlando settled on an additional $625 and a bottle of wine as a token of appreciation from Kate. Notably, this marked the end of their agreement of the sale and hence termination of the contract. Nonetheless, Orlando after hearing of Kate’s luck in finding another job intends to seek for the additional fee. Notably, Kate has no obligation to pay the remaining amount considering that Orlando agreed to new terms. The Law of promissory estoppel guards Kate against Orlando’s idea to demand more money. On the other hand, the doctrine of part payment debt assumes that partial payment of a debt does not hinder the creditor from fully enforcing the intention to settle. From this