It is commonly accepted that an estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a person from negating or claiming a fact due to that person’s prior conduct. The doctrine of estoppel has been applied for years and different forms of estoppel have been established. For the purpose of this essay, I will predominantly concentrate on promissory estoppel in relation to the law of contracts. This essay will be approached by discussing the issues of pre-contractual liability, consideration, reliance and the doctrine as a cause of action or defence and a slight comparison of the standpoints that various jurisdictions hold towards these issues. These arguments would conclude the uncertainty of the doctrine and thus, the difficulty and issues that would be faced with the codification of the estoppel. Promissory Estoppel In the 19th century, promissory estoppel was first introduced in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co , where Lord Cairns ruled that parties who have entered into fixed terms and then afterwards, by their own act or will, enter negotiations which influence the other party to assume that the stringent rights that were originally imposed will not be enforced or will be deferred, should be unable to reverse from this if it is inequitable for them to do so. This doctrine was resurrected by Lord Denning in Central London Property Ltd v High Trees House Ltd , where he expanded on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and ruled that where there is a promise intended to form legal relations and the promisor knew it would be acted upon and it was acted upon by the promisee then the promise made would be binding even with a lack of consideration. Conditions of Promissory Estoppel Promissory estoppel has now developed to require three main con... ... middle of paper ... ...aw in the US and Australia where the doctrine can be used to found a cause of action to remedy the non-performance of a promise unsupported by consideration. In the UK however, it is a means where contractual rights may be suspended, but not by which new rights can be formed. In the US, where the doctrine can be used as a cause of action and has been used in multiple cases, commentators have claimed that the doctrine is a ‘flexible means of achieving fairness’ and ‘cannot be reduced to a precise formula or series of tests’ . Conclusion Due to the various strands of arguments and its limited scope of application today, the doctrine has vague areas which need to be resolved before codification is possible. The strength of the doctrine lies in the courts ability to award the defence based on the facts of the case and codification would need to achieve this fluidity.
The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key stage in how the balance is drawn between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Law of Property Act 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overreaching and the machinery of conveyancing.Ref ?
A promissory estoppel is present if one party makes a promise to the other knowing that the other will rely on it. If the other party relies on it, there would be an injustice if the promise was not enforced. In the case of Sam and the chain store, unless the chain store had already paid him and/or spent money in anticipation of the arrival of the 1000 units, promissory estoppel would not be present since they did not rely on Sam’s promise. However, since the text reads that the chain store wrote a letter to Sam demanding that the 1000 units be sent, it implies that they had relied upon that
The courts are currently limited by the doctrine and are thus unable to protect the rights and liberty of those who deserve remedies. The UK, being primarily of modernity in regard to their legal approach could be argued as quite different to Australia and thus in rebuttal to that position, one would argue even New Zealand, another Australasian country has moved towards and abolished Advocates Immunity. In the case of Chamberlains v Lai New Zealand’s highest court chose to abolish Advocates Immunity, thus moving New Zealand towards a more just and modernist
Had Sam promised the units to the store, knowing the store is relying on them, which they do, and the only way to make it right in the eyes of the law is to enforce that promise, then the elements of promissory estoppel have been established. In all likelihood, by extending an offer to Sam, the store may have passed on another product, and also dedicated resources to marketing and selling Sam’s. Without the products in hand, the store is set up for a loss. Promissory estoppel may be their only recourse for mitigating those
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. - Counsel [24] See footnote 22 – but page 61 [25] GEOFFREY, Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford 1971 Chapter1 – the Law and the constitution, part 3. Dicey’s doctrine and its critics. [26] REGINA v HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, Ex parte SMEDLEY, [COURT OF APPEAL], [1985] Q B 657, 19 December 1984, (c)2001 The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales [27] MITCHELL, JDB, Constitutional Law, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, W Green & SON LTD, 1968, Convention, page 31 [28] See footnote 22 but page 64
The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.
Gillett v. Holt The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is an equitable intervention in cases where the enforcement of legal rights is considered by the courts to be unconscionably unfair. The essence of the doctrine arises, as defined by Snell: '[when] one (A) is encouraged to act to his detriment by the representations or encouragement of another (O) so that it would be unconscionable for O to insist on his strict legal rights.' (McGhee, 2000, p.637) In the absence of a written agreement, estoppel acts as an evidentiary tool with which the courts can help ensure fair interaction in property dealings. Proprietary estoppel is a method by which informal arrangements are recognized as being capable of creating proprietary interests.
Lord Denning described estoppel succinctly as ‘a principle of justice and equity. It comes to this: when a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it when it would be unjust or inequitable for him to do so’ . Proprietary estoppel in turn is an informal method by which proprietary rights can arise. It can provide a defence to an action by a landowner who seeks to enforce his strict rights against someone who has been informally promised some right or liberty over the land. In turn it can be used as a defence or a cause of action. In order to show how the two doctrines are quite similar, a description of the elements of proprie...
The liability for negligent misstatement may arise from pure economic loss. According to Steele (2010), ‘Economic losses will be regarded as “pure” if they do not flow from any personal injury to the claimant nor from physical damage to his or her property’. The boundaries between “pure” economic loss and the loss which is “consequential” from damage were established by the Court
...posit is made with the whole, with no individual. The contract is equal, for each gives all. No one reserves any rights by which he can claim to judge of his own conduct” (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 568).
HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
This case mentioned below is a fine example of understanding the Law of Contract in a better manner. (Gerald, 2014).
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.