Estoppel

Question 1

What is traditional Estoppel/ Estoppel by representation?
Name the Cases

Answer 1

It is when person A leads person B to believe that a certain state of facts exist and B relies upon this to their detriment, A can then not change/ alter the state of facts.
Example: A says that a debt is excused. A can then not say that no it’s actually not excused after the fed relies on it .

1. McNeill v Miller
2. Jordan v Money

Question 2

McNeil v Miller

Answer 2

Facts: The defendant owned a car garage and the plaintiff wanted to get his car fixed. Plaintiff asked if there would be any need to insure his car incase of a fire or accident and the owner told him that there was no need due to the garage already being insured under that purpose. Plaintiff ended up not getting insurance and there was a fire and his car got damaged. The garage ended up not being insured.

Held: the garage was liable for the damages because they lead the plaintiff to believe that a certain state of facts existed( that the garage was insured) and the plaintiff acted to their detriment by not getting the insurance as a result.

Question 3

Jordan v Money

Answer 3

Facts: The plaintiff was owed a particular amount of debt and was scared that she wouldn’t get any of it back. She agreed to not enforce a bond, promised to accept a lesser amount when it was due. The defendant used this info and went on about their life. Wanted to see if this promise was enforceable.

Held: for estoppel to arise there must be a statement of fact and not what the party intends to do it not to do and as a result the promise cannot be enforced.

Question 4

What is promissory estoppel?
Name 2 leading cases

Answer 4

Promissory estoppel is when person A promises person B that term of existing contract doesn’t apply and person B acts on this, person A can’t go back on their promise.
It is an equitable remedy preventing a person from going back on their promise.
Not concerned with whether a representation has been made but rather if the person relied on this promise.

1. Central London Property v High Trees
2. Barge Inn Limited

Question 5

Central Properties v High Trees

Answer 5

Facts: During WW2 cuz many ppl were fleeing the country, the plaintiff agreed to half the rent and def agreed to this and lived on property. After the war had ended, the plaintiff was seeking to get the other parts of the pay back.

Held: The doctrine of promissory estoppel was established in this case because the law was too limited to a representation by fact.

The plaintiff would not have been entitled to claim the full rent because the plaintiff represented that it would accept half the rent and the defendant acted upon that and therefore the plaintiff is estopped from collecting extra rent.
Denning: ‘ I prefer to apply the principle that a promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted on and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its terms properly apply…although the Courts have not gone so far as to give damages for breach of such a promise, they have refused to allow the party making it act inconsistently with it.

Lord Denning Test:
1. X makes a representation to Y to the effect that X will not rely on the strict terms of a contract previously made between the parties (intended to be acted upon)
2. Y relies on such a statement (actually acted upon)
3. Notwithstanding the absence of consideration, X will not be permitted to enforce the strict
terms of the contract in contravention of the representation she has made. (intended to be binding).

Question 6

Barge Inn Limited

Answer 6

Facts The defendant’s attempted to forfeit the 2009 Lease on the basis of the failure of the plaintiff to pay rent at the rate of €400,000 per annum. Similar to High Trees, they agreed to accept a lower rent until the P was back on their feet. However, this only applied whilst the temporary conditions remained. Held that as soon as the tenant could afford the higher rent again, the contract could go back to normal.

Held: As soon as the tenant could afford the higher rent again, the contract could go back to normal

Question 7

What are the Ingredients of Promissory Estoppel?

Answer 7

1. The pre-existing legal relationship between the parties
2. The representation must be unambiguous- can be oral/ written/ by conduct.
3. Must be reliance by the promisee( and possible detriment)
4. Must be some element of unfairness and unconscionability
5. Estoppel cannot be used as a cause of action but rather as a defence
6. The remedy is a matter for the court