Promissory Estoppel - NB read with latter half of consideration Flashcards
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
When there had been negotiations, during which it had been made clear that the necessary repairs would be stayed, and these had failed and forfeiture was served - the landlord was estopped as the notice had only begun when the negotiations had finished
Pinnel’s Case
Promissory estoppel is the equivalent of the rule in PC but in the court’s equitable jurisdiction
Birmingham and District Land Co (doubting Hughes)
The idea in Hughes is not limited to forfeiture, as was claimed in Hughes - Bowen LJ stated that it applied to all contractual rights where an abeyance is in place
High Trees
If a promise was made, which was intended to be relied upon, and relied upon, then in equity the promisor would not be allowed to go back on that promise, even though there was no consideration
- need a distinct promise to have been made NOT to enforce contractual rights and accompanying intention to affect legal relations
The Post Chaser
The promise must have been relied on by the promisee before it will found an estoppel - detrimental reliance is NOT necessary, as explained in HT - needs to be a change of position, though
Societe Italo-Belge - Goff J
The C could have actually benefited from the reliance but it is the inequity of retracting the promise, at least without reasonable notice, which establishes PE - e.g. charging lower rent and then asking for the money retrospectively -
Musumeci
Although the Ps were not doing more than what they had to do, the Ds had benefited from the shop being filled - Williams extended to cover this case
D & C Builders Ltd v Rees
Simply applied Foakes, there was no consideration for the P’s promise to Ms Rees, and, since the Ps had been extracted from them by pressure, there was no inequity in allowing them to resile from it and sue for the remainder as CL allowed them to do
Collier v Wright
A creditor who denied that part-payment was for the whole was estopped and this applies if 1. a debtor offers to pay part, 2. the creditor voluntarily accepts, 3. in reliance of creditor’s acceptance the debtor pays part of the amount he owes in full and final satisfaction of the whole debt - this only applies to part-payment of a debt
Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten
The need for notice, in lieu of an event of lapse of events providing just that, the need for a reasonable period - this is fact dependent
Combe v Combe
PE is a shield not a sword so it cannot be a cause in action, also, must come under a pre-existing contract
Walton Stores v Maher
PE has grown out of the ‘shield’ position in other jurisdictions, e.g. here in Australia, here an implied promise was made to show that a contract existed
