Promissory Estoppel

Question 0

D&C Builders v Rees

Answer 0

Facts: Rees didn’t pay the full sum for the work D&C had done following an agreement to do so; D&C where under fear of going bankrupt
Decision: Rees had to pay the whole sum
Significance: It must be equitable to enforce a debt

Question 1

Walton Stores v Maher

Answer 1

Australian case where estoppel has been used as a sword

Question 2

Baird v M&S

Answer 2

Facts: Baird had been producing clothes for M&S for 30 years; M&S suddenly cancelled their order; there had been no contract
Decision: They where not estopped
Significance: A contract must be expressed not implied

Question 3

Combe v Combe

Answer 3

Promissory estoppel is a shield not a sword

Question 4

London Central Property Trust v High Trees

Answer 4

Facts: the claimants reduced rent during WWII then wanted to revert to the original agreement
Decision: they could
Significance: In Lord Denning’s obiter that when a party has relied on a promise it cannot be taken back at a later stage

Question 5

Jorden v Money

Answer 5

Can’t be a statement of future intention

Question 6

Crabb v Arun District Council

Answer 6

In proprietary estoppel there must be detrimental reliance; can be a cause of a action

Question 7

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co

Answer 7

When negotiating the clock was paused