Promissory Estoppel Flashcards
Combe v Combe (1951) CA
Shield not a sword.
“Consideration remains a cardinal necessity of the formation of a contract, but not its modification or discharge” per Denning MR
“It does not create new causes of action where none existed before” per Denning MR
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) HL
The tie of negotiations “paused to clock” on the 6 months notice of repair. Estopped from asserting strict legal rights when negotiating.
Jorden v Money (1854) HL
A statement of future intention is not binding.
High Trees (1947)
The claimant’s would have been estopped from trying to claim for the war years. It’s unclear how far this doctrine will extend. Distinguishes from Jorden v Money as the promisor made it clear she did not intend to be legally bound. Distinguishes from Foakes v Beer as the law has changed over time.
Collier v P&MJ Wright (2008) CA
Praise of Lord Denning’s obiter, but views the doctrine with caution. Felt it should be limited to cases of “true accord”. Part payment of a debt could be accepted in this case.
Woodhouse v Nigerian Produce Marketing (1972)
The promise must be seriously made and clear.
D&C Builders v Rees (1966)
A creditor cannot reinforce a payment of the original sum where it would be inequitable to do so.
Brikom Investments v Carr (1979)
The principle extends to all cases where one party makes a promise or a misrepresentation, intending that it should be binding, intending the other should rely on it, and on which the other does in fact rely - by acting on it, by altering his position on the faith of it, by going ahead with a transaction then under discussion, or by any other way of reliance… Once it is shown that a representation was calculated to influence the judgment of a reasonable [person], the presumption is that he was so influenced.
Crabb v Arun DC (1976) CA
Proprietary estoppel can be a cause of action where there is detrimental reliance.
Amalgamated Investments v Texas Bank (1982) CA
“The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law… when the parties to a transaction proceed on the basis of an underlying assumption - either of fact or of law - whether due to misrepresentations or mistake makes no difference - on which they have conducted the dealings between them - neither of them will be allowed to go back on that assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow him to do so. If one of them does seek to go back on it, the courts will give the other such remedy as the equity of the case demands it” per Denning MR
Walton Stores v Maher (1988) Australia
M successfully used estoppel as a cause of action.
“… an assumption that a contract will come into existence or a promise will be performed and that the other party relied on that assumption to his detriment to the knowledge of the first party” per Mason CJ and Wilson J
