Promissory Estoppel Case Study

1290 Words3 Pages

If English law decided to abolish the doctrine of consideration it would rely on alternative methods such as promissory estoppel to replace the role of consideration in filtering out non-contractual agreements. The outcome of using alternative methods rather than consideration would impact on case precedency and it would change the formation of contracts as consideration is a key element in forming a contract. However since there has been legitimacy and applicability issues raised regarding the doctrine of consideration, it seems necessary to look into the possible abolishment of consideration and finding an alternative method to fill its role in contract law. This alternative method could be promissory estoppel if it wasn’t limited to a defence
Estoppel is a doctrine that can on occasion disable a party on going back on their promise when consideration isn’t present. It is currently used as a defensive mechanism in which a contract can be modified but not formed upon. Therefore usually consideration is used during the formation of contract but if consideration happens to not be present then estoppel can be used to enforce the promise even if consideration isn’t present. Promissory estoppel was first established in Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 in which Denning J used estoppel to prevent Central London Property Trust on going back on their promise to accept a lower rent. "In my opinion, the time has now come for the validity of such a promise to be recognized. The logical consequence, no doubt is that a promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration", Denning J had generated an approach to allow a contract to exist even if consideration is not present, therefore this begs the question of whether we need
Although this would be a drastic measure since the case law in this matter is fairly unanimous in only using estoppel as a shield. Take the Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer Plc [2001] in which Judge LJ stated, “Estoppel is not capable of creating its own cause of action”. He also held that estoppel would necessitate further expansion to be used as an action. Therefore the need for further development on the laws of estoppel but it is not necessarily a bad alternative as seen in the Australian case of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] 164 CLR in which the High Court of Australia allowed estoppel to be used as a sword, this meaning that estoppel can play an important role in the formation of contracts. Albeit that promissory estoppel could work as an alternative to consideration, the question is whether it would be a better alternative. Negatives for promissory estoppel (use the baird

Open Document