Promissory Estoppel Flashcards
Promissory estoppel
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable exception to the principle that an agreement will not be upheld in the absence of sufficient consideration. The promise will be enforceable if non-enforcement would lead to injustice, even where there is no consideration.
Crabb v Arun District Council
‘if he makes a binding contract that he will not insist on the strict legal position, a court of equity will hold him to his contract’.
Smith v Ireland
Finlay P endorsed lord dennings dicta and thus the doctrine applies in Irish law.
Barge Inn v Quinn Ltd
For a promissory estoppel claim to be successful the following requirements, as set out by Laffoy J which are as follows:
1. Pre-existing legal relationship between the parties
2. An unambiguous representation
3. Reliance by the promise and possible detriment
4. Element of unfairness/unconstitutionality
5. Estoppel is being used not as a cause of action but as a defence- Estoppel is ‘a shield not a sword’.
6. Remedy is a matter for the court
- Coombe v Coombe
a man promised ex wife financial income but failed to honour promise. The wife failed to provide any consideration for this promise. Court relied on the prior case of Central London v High trees and held that the promise was deemed unenforceable as no pre-existing legal relationship existed. This was approved Chartererd Trust v Healy.
- Folens v Minister of Education
there must be a definitive commitment or representation
- Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
The landlord of a property had agreed with the tenants to not enforce them to do repairs as required under their contract while negotiations between them were ongoing. He subsequently sought to enforce the repairs. The court held the landlord was estopped from doing so as he had made a promise which was intended to be relied upon and to let him reneg from his promise would be inequitable.
- Zurich Bank v McConnon
the bank had given Mccarron time to repay loans but after some time sought the money due. He argued he had relied on the promise not to pursue the loans immediately, but the court held that there was no detrimental reliance in this case and the bank was entitled to seek monies it was owed.
- D&C Builders v Rees
As Mee states, there must be some element of unfairness that it would be unconscionable to allow the promissor to go back on its promise. In D&C Builders, the builders were put under duress to accept a lower payment than they were owed, they were in dire financial circumstances. The court held the fact the defendants were aware of dire circumstances was unconscionable.
- Coombe v Coombe
PE can only be used as a defence, not a cause of action. This was confirmed in Association of GPs v Min for health. In Coombe v Coombe, the plaintiff could not raise estoppel to enforce her ex-husbands promise to pay her 100 per annum in financial support. She was prevented from using estoppel as a cause of action where no contractual relationship existed.
- Kenny v Kelly
Estoppel is a discretionary remedy applied by the court and is not a right. Estoppel suspends rights but does not extinguish them. In Kenny v Kelly, a student was offered a place in UCD and deferred for a year after the university assured him his place would be kept if he paid the fees. Held that ucd was estopped from denying him his place as his right was merely delayed rather than extinguished.
