James had a severe gambling problem. He borrowed $10,000 from Johnny on June 30th 2017 and promised to repay him by September 30th 2017. James gambled immensely at the local Casino and Johnny was worried that he will never be paid.
On the 10th August 2017, Johnny met James at the Trincity mall and enquired about the monies owed; James responded that he will pay the sums borrowed on the agreed date as promised. Johnny was at that point merely seeking to get his money before 30th September 2017. On that said night quite surprisingly, James won a sizeable amount of money at the Casino. It suddenly dawn to his mind, that Johnny was anxious to get his money back and this had him thinking. He came up with the idea that he offer Johnny a smaller sum, than the $10,000 borrowed, and as such profit from his borrowings.
James visited Johnny the next day and offered him $7,000 for the $10,000 that was borrowed. He told Johnny that is all he can afford currently and he will consider this as a full settlement for the entire debt of $10,000. Johnny quickly took the money, because he was fearful that he will never be paid.
However, Johnny is extremely concerned about the $3,000 balance that was not paid, and whether he has any rights against James for that unpaid sum.
Please advise Johnny on this matter.
If Johnny on the other hand, had on the 10th August 2017, indicated to James that he will accept a smaller sum as consideration for the entire sum borrowed; will your answer above be different?