Not without consideration: an agreement to take less than the sum due binds the creditor only where the creditor gains some benefit, such as earlier payment or the settlement of a genuine dispute, so part payment alone does not discharge the debt, and banking a cheque marked full and final is not conclusive where the creditor makes clear it is taken only on account, as D and C Builders v Rees shows

Not without consideration. An agreement to take less than the sum due binds the creditor only where the creditor gains some benefit, because payment of a lesser sum is not by itself consideration for discharging the whole debt. A benefit such as earlier payment can suffice, and so can the compromise of a genuine dispute, where the creditor surrenders a claim in exchange for the reduced payment. In D and C Builders Ltd v Rees there was no true accord and satisfaction: the builder had acted under an unjustified threat and there was no consideration, so the balance was recoverable. A cheque marked full and final is not conclusive: in Stour Valley Builders v Stuart the recipient banked it, said it was not accepted as full and final and recovered more, and in Newton Moor Construction Ltd v Charlton there was no accord without a reciprocal benefit. Conduct still counts, and in Bracken v Billinghurst a cheque cleared on express terms of settlement was held full and final. A settlement may be unwound where a party was misled or lacked authority, as in Hurst Stores and Interiors Ltd v ML Property Ltd. Where a cheque marked full and final is banked, the creditor should make clear at once that it is taken only on account.