Promissory Estoppel

Question 1

High Trees (tenancy in 1940s London)

Answer 1

C had promised to reduce the agreed rent for the duration of the war (they were having trouble finding tenants in war stricken 1940s London). The property became fully let after the war and C sued for the full rent since.
HELD: rent could be claimed in full for period that it was fully let for NOT for the wartime period –> estoppel

Question 2

PE - money due as a lump sum

Answer 2

Payment merely suspended during PE - afterwards C can resume their right to the WHOLE sum

Question 3

PE - money due in instalments

Answer 3

C cannot recover money waived only resume future payments

Question 4

D&C Builders v Rees (Mrs Rees)

Answer 4

PE needs inequity - Mrs Rees did not come with clean hands

Question 5

5 elements of PE

Answer 5

1) clear and unequivocal promise
2) change of position in reliance on promise
3) reliance need not be detrimental
4) inequity
5) shield not sword

Question 6

Woodhouse Cocoa v Nigerian Produce

Answer 6

A promise for PE must be clear - here it was not clear how payment was affected by currency market changes

Question 7

Combe v Combe

Answer 7

PE is a shield not a sword: defence not cause of action.

HOWEVER: US/Australian caselaw - Waltons Stores v Maher

Question 8

Tool Metal v Tungsten

Answer 8

The first law suit - where they had brought a counter-claim - was considered to be reasonable NOTICE to resume rights

Question 9

Effect of PE

Answer 9

Generally suspends rights (High Trees) which means right could be resumed later if…

1) reasonable notice UNLESS promise has altered position in reliance as to be unable to resume - Ajayi v Briscoe
2) circumstance giving rise to PE cease (High Trees - war had ended)

Question 10

The Postchaser

Answer 10

Reliance for PE must not be detrimental

Goff J: represented might even have benefited

Question 11

Collier v P&MJ Wright

Answer 11

Arden LJ seems to have dispense with the need for any meaningful reliance, but…

1) automatic inequity applies only to part-payment of debt (not other settings of PE)
2) case to case analysis of what equity demands

Question 12

Ajayi v Briscoe

Answer 12

For PE, the promisee must have changed position in reliance on promise. Here, the defendant had just carried on his business regardless of faulty lorries

COMPARE to misrepresentation: action cannot be maintained if a false statement in no way affected claimant’s judgement