The Principles Of Promissory Estoppel

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

In the case of Sam vs. Quinn, his landlord, and the national chain store. Sam is who is working on a great innovation, a device that sounds like a barking dog that will help assist in the safety and welfare of others. Several months ago, Sam hit the jackpot that would change his life and landed in a verbal contract to sell 1000 units to a national chain store. However, this young inventor has been mass producing this product from his place of residence, his apartment, own by Mr. Quinn. Sam arrives home one day to find two letters, one from the chain store demanding the 1000 units be delivered immediately. The other was an eviction notice from Mr. Quinn stating that his barking machine has been pestering the other tenants and that Sam was not supposed to be conducting business from his apartment. Sam is furious at both situations and decides to pro-sue the matters. Therefore, before the court can rule on these cases, the court should determine the various elements whether there is a valid contract, a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam’s claims.

“Promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement.” (USLegal.com, 2012)

The court ruled that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was correct for the promissory estoppels claim. The plaintiff’s breach of contract claim case was remanded back to the lower court for further determination.

the council. Makes a promise to reduce rent by 50% for a period (unambiguous representation.), they then shouldn’t be able to demand something that is contrary to this representation, because of an unexpected upturn in income of the other party (Abigail). Promissory estoppel can be divided into five separate parts. First, there was a promise of future conduct, with an intention for a legal relationship, on these new terms. I would say this would apply for Abigail as the council has accepted the reduction of rent by 50% for the duration of the work, caused by them, but I digress. And the making and implementing of the new payment plan. This to me, by the council’s actions, shows they wanted an amendment to allow her to stay and sell, therefore showing they wanted to create legal relations. Second, and third, has a party relied upon the promise to their detriment. I would say this is satisfied, as because of this new promise, Abigail reject a move to Beverly, as this new promise allowed her to make her rent and pay debts that had accrued. Fourth. This doesn’t stop any right previously owned by either party12.

The equitable doctrine of implied-in-law contract, a quasi-contract, would have allowed the court to award monetary damages to a plaintiff for providing work or services to a defendant even though no actual contract existed between the parties (Cheeseman, 2015, p. 195). This would apply to the situation in which Sam received some form of payment for his units before he shipped the units to the store. In this case, Sam would have been under the legal obligation to send the units to the chain store. Promissory estoppel (or detrimental reliance) is an equity doctrine that permits a court to order enforcement of a contract that lacks consideration (Cheeseman, 2015, p. 220). Promissory estoppel is used to avoid injustice. The elements of the promissory estoppel include the promisor making a promise, the promiseé replying to the promise, the promiseé taking action on the promise, and experiencing injustice when the promise was not enforced. The promissory estoppel in this case is invalid because there was no discussion about the compensation in return for the 1,000 units, no action based on the promise, and no injustice suffered as a result of fulfilling a

However, because Harry detrimentally relied on Tom’s promise by building a 2000 sq. ft room onto his house to make room for the trains, he should be able make a claim of promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an exception to the classical elements of a contract. The courts should allow a contract to be enforced albeit it lacks consideration by allowing detrimental reliance to substitute for consideration.

upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present.” (Promissory Estoppel, n.d.). This principal might apply to this case if the chain store, relied so heavily on receiving Sam’s shipment, that they cancelled agreements with other manufacturers that offered a similar product. Or if Sam rejected offers from other store chains and the one he made the verbal agreement with decides to not follow through and purchase his product.

One of the formal components of an enforceable contract is consideration. Lush J defined consideration as: ‘...may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given suffered or undertaken by the other.’ The definition provides guideline to decide the existence of a consideration. While consideration is necessary for an agreement to be enforceable. The development of equity court has allowed promises to be enforced even without consideration. This essay contends that under certain circumstances like promissory estoppel, a promise can be enforced even without support of consideration. The essay considers the development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel by looking at how the courts have applied the principle in cases。As such application practically manifests the role of judicial discretion which might undermine provision of certainty and predictability of common law rules in contractual disputes. We will discuss the role of judicial discretion and then conclude by considering the status of certainty and predictability in the law.

A contract can only exist when there is a mutual agreement the parties involved in the contract and the agreement should be based on parties’ free will with no undue influence from the parties involved (Hillman, 2012). It is apparent that Jim and Laura made the decision to buy the car and they went to see the car dealer and initiated the agreement at the same time made an offer for Sedan cars after testing several cars. They agreed to the terms of the contract of sale and promised to come the following day to pick the car. These provided reasons beyond doubt that Jim and Laura were committed to the agreement and both of them were of age and of sound mind which made the agreement a legal contract beyond doubt.

Memorandum and Objective: The purpose of the memorandum is to provide a detailed review and analysis of the legal situation considering “Paslay, Bryan & Brooks, Barristers & Solicitors**” and

In Marshall’s defense I would have to be prepared that he could use Promissory Estoppel as a legal defense should our case be brought before a judge. If we are unwilling to come to an agreement the judge might enact this particular method to award damages to Marshall based of our implied contract in good faith. In the Seattle University Law Review it states:

The way exclusion clauses are treated has developed over the years through case law and the courts, but their purpose remains the same: to exclude the contracting party of liability in the event that the contract is breached or problems are incurred during the time of the contract. Contracts are legally enforcing promises freely entered into by two or more parties. Over the past few decades, a conflict has emerged between the freedom for people to contract to any contracts they wish and interference by the courts and parliament. Classically, as long as the party has the mental capacity and is of legal age to contract, they may do so. However since the introduction of statutes such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999 this liberty has been reduce significantly. The UCTA and the UTCCR have caused much controversy and have been reviewed by both Law Commissions. Moreover, there is currently discussion within Parliament about the amendment of the existing legislation and introduction of the Consumer Rights Bill. However, this essay will discuss whether the interference resulting in different treatment for exclusion clauses was for better or for worse concentrating solely on the current legislation. These legislations focus mainly on exclusion clauses which in many cases they are not looked upon fondly by courts due to the potential for an abuse of bargaining power and unfair contracting. The first item to

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

It was this mergence that saw Lord Mansfield becoming known as ‘the founder of commercial law within this country [United Kingdom]’, due to his ability to harmonise ‘commercial custom and the common law ...with an almost complete understanding of the commercial community, and the fundamental principles of the old law and that that marriage of idea proved acceptable to both merchants and lawyers.’ At this stage, the principle of caveat emptor was utilised as a guiding principle for the courts, devised namely in response to the manner in which business at this time was undertaken. This was in response to the manner in which business was conducted, namely in small fairs with small quantities of goods being bought and sold, buyers were afforded the opportunity to inspect the goods and use their own knowledge and skill to determine whether or not to purchase them. As such, it was the buyer’s responsibility to ensure that due diligence was observed at the time of purchase. Failing to inspect the goods resulted in the cost would be lost if the goods purchased were not what was wanted. In this context protection for buyers was to a certain extent non-existent. The only way in which a seller could be held liable was in circumstances where a written warranty was issued or if the case was considered to be one of false affirmation.