According to the rule, acceptance of the cheque or payment method does not remove the customer`s obligation to pay the remaining balance owed.  This is due to the fact that the client already had an obligation to pay the full amount and that there is no new consideration for the acceptance of the partial payment. In general, the courts will not check whether the parties have done good business or whether the consideration is fair.  However, the consideration must go beyond a simple assertion or false assertion that the consideration was exchanged when it was not. For many political reasons, the courts will apply certain types of promises, even if there is no quid pro quo. Some of them are governed by the Single Code of Trade (UCC); others are part of the established common law. Reflection, with a few exceptions, is a necessary element of a treaty. This is the right deal for giving up something of legal value for something in return. The aim is to formally intend to award contracts and reduce hasty promises.
However, the courts have upheld exclusive commercial agreements with the theory that the franchisee is required to make reasonable efforts to promote and sell the product or services. This obligation may be defined in the contract or implied by its terms. In the classic testimony of this concept, Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo, then in the New York Court of Appeals, explained in maintaining such a contract: bankruptcy is of course federal law. The rule here that relates to a promise of payment after the termination of the undertaking is generally similar to that of the statute of limitations. Traditionally, the promise to repay debts after a bankruptcy court relieved it makes the debtor again liable. This traditional rule leads to potential abuses; after the severity of the bankruptcy, a debtor could be deterred by creditors in the confirmation. Contracts subject to the International Goods Contracts Agreement (as mentioned in Chapter 8 «Introduction to Contract Law») do not require consideration to be binding.  Id.
to 8 («Any reflection, however small, holds a promise»). In a case of the Seventh Circuit, Meyer had entered into two previous loan agreements with firestone Financial Corporation.  Meyer stated that he had been informed by a representative that Firestone Financial Corporation would finance its purchases in 2013 on the same terms as the first two loan contracts. Meyer therefore purchased equipment to continue its activities. Firestone then refused to extend Mr. Meyer`s loan on the same terms and was late in his equipment purchases. The court found that the Promissory Estoppel had been applied because there was a clear promise made by Meyer and a violation that resulted. Therefore, despite the lack of consideration, Firestone Financial Corporation was bound by its promise. Note that the remedy could be limited to what Meyer spent depending on the agreement. He was unable to force the company to give him the full credit he had been promised.
We consider that the document signed by the defendant on February 15, 1966 is not an enforceable option and that defendant is not prevented from asserting it. In another case, Texas, though, the court kept the promise to arbitrate was not illusory, if some claims required arbitration, while others were not, but the designation was not entirely under the control of a party.  The partial control of payments rule is a consequence of the existing customs rule. In some situations, a customer may mark a payment with a rating such as «full payment» if the cheque does not cover the entire balance. What happens when a seller deposits a cheque with one of these ratings? In another earlier case, the late wife of a man had wanted to leave two hundred dollars to her family after her death.