Promissory estoppel ReV

Question 1

The performance or promise to perform a public duty is not valid consideration; which 2 cases considered this?

Answer 1

Collins v Godefroy

Still v Myrick

Question 2

The performance or promise to perform a public duty is not valid consideration;
discuss Collins v Godefroy

Colin was betrayed

Answer 2

A police officer was promised a sum of money by the defendant in a trial in return for the officer giving evidence, it was important to the defendant that the officer did so even though the officer had already been subpoenaed to do so.
HELD:
The promise to pay was unenforceable since there was no consideration given by the police officer for it. He was already under a legal duty to attend court

Question 3

A police officer was promised a sum of money by the defendant in a trial in return for the officer giving evidence, it was important to the defendant that the officer did so even though the officer had already been subpoenaed to do so.
HELD:
The promise to pay was unenforceable since there was no consideration given by the police officer for it. He was already under a legal duty to attend court

Answer 3

The performance or promise to perform a public duty is not valid consideration;
discuss Collins v Godefroy

Question 4

The performance or promise to perform a public duty is not valid consideration
Discuss Stilk v myrick

you mavericks

Answer 4

A team of 11 sailors agreed to crew a ship from London to Baltic and back. Two sailors deserted and the remaining 9 refused to work and pressed the captain for higher wages. He agreed at the time but ultimately refused to pay.
HELD:
The promise to pay was unenforceable since the sailors were already contractually bound to return the ship to London. no consideration was given by the sailors.

Question 5

A team of 11 sailors agreed to crew a ship from London to Baltic and back. Two sailors deserted and the remaining 9 refused to work and pressed the captain for higher wages. He agreed at the time but ultimately refused to pay.
HELD:
The promise to pay was unenforceable since the sailors were already contractually bound to return the ship to London. no consideration was given by the sailors.

Answer 5

The performance or promise to perform a public duty is not valid consideration
Discuss Stilk v myrick

Question 6

What do the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate?

Answer 6

that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise

Question 7

The Two cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick is that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise.
What are the 4 exceptions?

Answer 7

1) Where a public duty is exceeded (Glassbrook)
2) where a contractual duty is exceeded (Hartley)
3) where there is an existing contractual duty owed to a third party (Scotson v Pegg)
4) Where the rule in Williams v Roffey applies

Question 8

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

what is the leading case for
where a public duty is exceeded exception?

Answer 8

Glassbrook Bros

Question 9

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

the leading case for
where a public duty is exceeded exception is Glassbrook Bros
Discuss

Glassbrook Mine of Bros

Answer 9

The owner of a pit asked the police for extra protecting and promised to pay for it. After the strike, the pit owner refused to pay, claiming that the police were already bound by a public duty to protect the pit
HELD:
The promise to pay was enforceable since the police had done more than they would ordinarily had done, this was good consideration for the pit owner’s promise to pay

Question 10

The owner of a pit asked the police for extra protecting and promised to pay for it. After the strike, the pit owner refused to pay, claiming that the police were already bound by a public duty to protect the pit
HELD:
The promise to pay was enforceable since the police had done more than they would ordinarily had done, this was good consideration for the pit owner’s promise to pay

Answer 10

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

the leading case for
where a public duty is exceeded exception is Glassbrook Bros
Discuss

Question 11

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

what is the leading case for the exception fo where there is an existing contractual duty owed to a third party?

Answer 11

Scotson v Pegg

Question 12

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

the leading case for the exception fo where there is an existing contractual duty owed to a third party is Scotson v Pegg and approved by New Zealand Shipping Co
Discuss the first

Answer 12

The claimant contracted to deliver coal to X;s order. X sold the coal to the defendant and ordered the claimant to deliver the coal to the defendant. The defendant promised the claimant that he would unload it at a fixed daily rate. The defendant did not fulfil this promise. The claimant attempted to enforce the defendants promise. The defendant argued that the promise was not binding because the claimant had not provided consideration as the claimant was bound by his contract to X, to deliver the coal
HELD:
The delivery of the coal to the defendant was good consideration to enforce the defendants promise to pay

Question 13

The claimant contracted to deliver coal to X;s order. X sold the coal to the defendant and ordered the claimant to deliver the coal to the defendant. The defendant promised the claimant that he would unload it at a fixed daily rate. The defendant did not fulfil this promise. The claimant attempted to enforce the defendants promise. The defendant argued that the promise was not binding because the claimant had not provided consideration as the claimant was bound by his contract to X, to deliver the coal
HELD:
The delivery of the coal to the defendant was good consideration to enforce the defendants promise to pay

Answer 13

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

the leading case for the exception fo where there is an existing contractual duty owed to a third party is Scotson v Pegg and approved by New Zealand Shipping Co
Discuss the first

Question 14

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

what is the leading case for the exception ‘where a contractual duty is exceeded’

Answer 14

Hartley

Question 15

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

the leading case for the exception ‘where a contractual duty is exceeded’ is Hartley
discuss

harty

Answer 15

Similar to Stilk and involved a number of deserting sailrs. The captain promised to pay the remaining sailors additional wages after only 19 of 36 men were left
HELD:
The promise to pay was enforceable as the court considered the greater proportional reduction in crew numbers

Question 16

Similar to Stilk and involved a number of deserting sailrs. The captain promised to pay the remaining sailors additional wages after only 19 of 36 men were left
HELD:
The promise to pay was enforceable as the court considered the greater proportional reduction in crew numbers

Answer 16

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

the leading case for the exception ‘where a contractual duty is exceeded’ is Hartley
discuss

Question 17

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

What is the leading case for where there is an existing duty owed to promisor ?

Answer 17

Williamsn v Roffey

Question 18

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

the leading case for where there is an existing duty owed to promisor is Williams v Roffey
Discuss

Answer 18

In this case the contractor agreed to do work. They needed to finish the work in a particular period of time so subcontracted the work. The agreed sum was far too low, and sub-contractor said they would not do the work unless they were paid extra.
HELD:
This qualified as consideration under a ‘practical benefit’ approach. The claimant provided consideration by completing the work on time and therefore the defendants promise to pay the additional sum was binding, even though this decision at first seems incompatible with the rule in Stilk

Question 19

In this case the contractor agreed to do work. They needed to finish the work in a particular period of time so subcontracted the work. The agreed sum was far too low, and sub-contractor said they would not do the work unless they were paid extra.
HELD:
This qualified as consideration under a ‘practical benefit’ approach. The claimant provided consideration by completing the work on time and therefore the defendants promise to pay the additional sum was binding, even though this decision at first seems incompatible with the rule in Stilk

Answer 19

the 2 cases of
Collins v Godefroy and
Stilk v Myrick demonstrate that the basic rule in relation to performance of an existing duty is that it is not good consideration for a new promise
There are 4 exceptions:

the leading case for where there is an existing duty owed to promisor is Williams v Roffey
Discuss

Question 20

What is a main criticism of the decision in Williams v Roffey for the exception to the rule that the performance or promise to perform a public duty is not valid consideration?

Answer 20

This variable approach puts the idea of certainty at risk (conflicts with Stilk v Myrick)
Glidewell LJ explained that this case refined and limited the principle from Stilk but left the basic principle in tact and did not contravene it.

Question 21

The basic common law rule was relating to part payment of a debt which was stated in Pinnel’s case
Discuss

Answer 21

X owed Y a sum of money. At Y’s request X paid a lesser sum one month before the full sum was due. Cole claimed that there was an agreement that the part payment would discharge the full debt,
HELD:
Y was unsuccessful in claiming the balance for the unpaid debt. The court held that in general part payment of an original debt did not provide good consideration for the promise to waive the balance. Since Y gained some benefit by the part payment having been made early, this was sufficient consideration to enforce promise to forego the balance of the debt

Question 22

X owed Y a sum of money. At Y’s request X paid a lesser sum one month before the full sum was due. Cole claimed that there was an agreement that the part payment would discharge the full debt,
HELD:
Y was unsuccessful in claiming the balance for the unpaid debt. The court held that in general part payment of an original debt did not provide good consideration for the promise to waive the balance. Since Y gained some benefit by the part payment having been made early, this was sufficient consideration to enforce promise to forego the balance of the debt

Answer 22

The basic common law rule was relating to part payment of a debt which was stated in Pinnel’s case
Discuss

Question 23

Following Pinnel’s case payment of a lesser sum may discharge the full debt is some additional consideration is provided. What 3 things would allow this?

Answer 23

1) paid before it is due
2) by different means (less valued property eg)
3) in a different place to that originally specified

Question 24

What case was an example of how a rule of Pinnel’s case can operate harshly?

Answer 24

Foakes v Beer

Question 25

an example of how a rule of Pinnel’s case can operate harshly was seen in Foakes v Beer
Discuss

Answer 25

In this case Foakes owed Beer a sum of money. They agreed that Foakes could pay in instalments. Beer agreed that no further action would be taken if the debt was paid by the agreed date. Later, Beer demanded an additional interest payment. Foakes refused to pay.
HELD:
Beer succeeded in the claim for the interest payment. Foakes provided no consideration. The same reasoning was applied as in Pinnel’s case.

Question 26

In this case Foakes owed Beer a sum of money. They agreed that Foakes could pay in instalments. Beer agreed that no further action would be taken if the debt was paid by the agreed date. Later, Beer demanded an additional interest payment. Foakes refused to pay.
HELD:
Beer succeeded in the claim for the interest payment. Foakes provided no consideration. The same reasoning was applied as in Pinnel’s case.

Answer 26

an example of how a rule of Pinnel’s case can operate harshly was seen in Foakes v Beer
Discuss

Question 27

Although the application of Pinnel’s case in Foakes v Beer was harsh/unfair how did the Lords justify their decision?

Answer 27

They said they were unprepared to overturn Pinnel’s case which had been accepted as part of English law for over 280 years

Question 28

what did Treital comment regarding the harshly of Pinnel’s case applied in Foakes v Beer?

Answer 28

He argued whether the antiquity of Pinnel’s case was really adequate justification for continuing to apply it in the cirucmstances of Foakes v Beer.

For this reason the decision is arguably out of step with modern developments in the doctrine fo consideration

Question 29

What case demonstrated that the courts have refused to extend the Roffey Bros practical benefit test to the debt discharge ?

Answer 29

Re Selectmove

Question 30

Re Selectmove demonstrated that the courts have refused to extend the Roffey Bros practical benefit test to the debt discharge
Discuss

Answer 30

in this case the company owed a sum of income tax and NIC to the Inland Revenue. The company argued that the tax collector they spoke to said they could repay in instalments in stead of being wound up.
ISSUE:
Inland Revenue argue that there was no consideration for this agreement as the company were only paying what they already owed.
HELD:
the tax collector lacked actual authority to bind the Revenue.
The court however did consider the question of consideration. Gibson LJ said that Williams v Roffey Bros only applied to cases where work was done or goods supplied and to extend it to debts would go against Foakes v Beer which expressly said that a practical benefit was not good consideration in law. As Foakes v Beer was a HOL case the COA were bound to follow. Therefore the agreement was not supported by consideration

Question 31

in this case the company owed a sum of income tax and NIC to the Inland Revenue. The company argued that the tax collector they spoke to said they could repay in instalments in stead of being wound up.
ISSUE:
Inland Revenue argue that there was no consideration for this agreement as the company were only paying what they already owed.
HELD:
the tax collector lacked actual authority to bind the Revenue.
The court however did consider the question of consideration. Gibson LJ said that Williams v Roffey Bros only applied to cases where work was done or goods supplied and to extend it to debts would go against Foakes v Beer which expressly said that a practical benefit was not good consideration in law. As Foakes v Beer was a HOL case the COA were bound to follow. Therefore the agreement was not supported by consideration

Answer 31

Re Selectmove demonstrated that the courts have refused to extend the Roffey Bros practical benefit test to the debt discharge
Discuss

Question 32

What case demonstrates a similar approach as Re Selective to the irrelevance of practical benefit benefit test to the discharge of a debt, in the doctrine of promissory estoppel?

Answer 32

Collier v Wright

Question 33

Collier v Wright demonstrates a similar approach as Re Selective to the irrelevance of practical benefit benefit test to the discharge of a debt, in the doctrine of promissory estoppel
Discuss

collier dogs are trustworthy

Answer 33

The applicant was one of 3 partners who were liable for a sum of money owed to the defendant
The applicant alleged he made an oral agreement with the defendant that his liability should be limited to 1/3rd of the judgement debt and the defendant would recover the rest of the debt from the other two partners. The defendant submitted that he was not bound to relying on Foakes:
HELD:
The COA held that the applicant had established an arguable case for promissory estoppel as a defence to the claim of the defendant

Question 34

The applicant was one of 3 partners who were liable for a sum of money owed to the defendant
The applicant alleged he made an oral agreement with the defendant that his liability should be limited to 1/3rd of the judgement debt and the defendant would recover the rest of the debt from the other two partners. The defendant submitted that he was not bound to relying on Foakes:
HELD:
The COA held that the applicant had established an arguable case for promissory estoppel as a defence to the claim of the defendant

Answer 34

Collier v Wright demonstrates a similar approach as Re Selective to the irrelevance of practical benefit benefit test to the discharge of a debt, in the doctrine of promissory estoppel
Discuss

collier dogs are trustworthy

Question 35

In Collier v Wright:
The applicant was one of 3 partners who were liable for a sum of money owed to the defendant
The applicant alleged he made an oral agreement with the defendant that his liability should be limited to 1/3rd of the judgement debt and the defendant would recover the rest of the debt from the other two partners. The defendant submitted that he was not bound to relying on Foakes:
HELD:
The COA held that the applicant had established an arguable case for promissory estoppel as a defence to the claim of the defendant
What does this mean for applicants under promissory estoppel?

Answer 35

On this basis, debtor who pays the promised part of a debt may now be able to rely upon promissory estoppel in order to defeat a claim brought by the creditor to recover the balance of the debt ; on the facts of Foakes, the debtor had paid the promised part of the debt and so on this reasoning ought to have been able to rely on promissory estoppel as a defence. This decision therefore significantly limits the rule in Foakes

Question 36

It was demonstrated in Pinnel’s case and Couldrey that any difference in performance will do, however slightly different
What did COuldrey hold?

Answer 36

that a creditor may accept anything in satisfaction of his debt except a less amount of money. He may take a horse, canary etc

Question 37

What 4 critiques did the Law Reform Committee Sixth Interm Report make of consideration?

Answer 37

1) promise inducing detrimental reliance should be legally enforceable
2) Abrogation (repeal) of the rule against past consideration
3) agreements involving performance of existing legal duty should be legally enforceable, if no public policy objection
4) agreement to accept part payment should be legally enforceable if no improper pressure or fraud

Question 38

Why is it argued that the courts should reconsider Foakes v Beer in light of practical benefit and promissory estoppel in cases of detrimental reliance?

Answer 38

as arguably the fact one cannot discharge a lower payment due to lack of consideration reflects an inconsistency with the law of consideration and commercial practise

Question 39

What happened in the case of MWB Business Exchange centres v Rock Adverting?

Answer 39

In this case MWB managed office space which was occupied by the defendants for 8 years. The defendant decided to expand and agreed to take a licence for a larger premises for an increased fee. The defendants came to have considerable arears and so the claimant company exercised its rightright to lock the defendants out and gave a notice of termination.
ISSUE:
The defendants argued there was an oral agreement to reschedule the payments along with a payment to be the first of the revised scheme. The defendants argued that this payment estopped MWB from denying the rescheduling of the payments. The claimants argued that oral variations were prohibited under the licence agreement
HELD:
In this case the court held that there could be oral variation as the autonomy of the parties was paramount. Court found there was an agreement by MWB as they obtained a practical benefit from accepting payment of an existing debt by instalments

Question 40

In this case MWB managed office space which was occupied by the defendants for 8 years. The defendant decided to expand and agreed to take a licence for a larger premises for an increased fee. The defendants came to have considerable arears and so the claimant company exercised its rightright to lock the defendants out and gave a notice of termination.
ISSUE:
The defendants argued there was an oral agreement to reschedule the payments along with a payment to be the first of the revised scheme. The defendants argued that this payment estopped MWB from denying the rescheduling of the payments. The claimants argued that oral variations were prohibited under the licence agreement
HELD:
In this case the court held that there could be oral variation as the autonomy of the parties was paramount. Court found there was an agreement by MWB as they obtained a practical benefit from accepting payment of an existing debt by instalments

Answer 40

What happened in the case of MWB Business Exchange centres v Rock Adverting?

Question 41

What happened in the 2018 case Rock Advertsing MWB?

Answer 41

In this appeal case, the UKSC held that a no oral modification (NOM) clause is legally effective, overturning the COA’s ruling that a NOM clause did not prevent a valid variation by oral agreement.
HELD:
Lord Briggs judgement indicates that later variations are still possible, but there should be an express agreement between the parties to do away with the NOM clause they have previously agreed.

Question 42

SIGNIFICANTLY What did Arden LJ comment in the case of MWB Business Exchange centres v Rock Adverting?

Answer 42

that the necessary result of this case is that cases in the future where agreements to pay a lesser sum than was due under a previous contract will be held to be enforceable because there has been shown to have been consideration in the form of a practical benefit to the creditor which he sought. This may strike a satisfactory balance between enforcing promises and enabling debtors to rely on their creditor’s promises, and on the other hand protecting creditors from debtors who seek unfairly to gain an advantage from their creditors

Question 43

In this appeal case, the UKSC held that a no oral modification (NOM) clause is legally effective, overturning the COA’s ruling that a NOM clause did not prevent a valid variation by oral agreement.
HELD:
Lord Briggs judgement indicates that later variations are still possible, but there should be an express agreement between the parties to do away with the NOM clause they have previously agreed.

Answer 43

What happened in the 2018 case Rock Advertsing MWB?

Question 44

Why may the decision in Rock Advertsing MWB be welcomed?

Answer 44

as it may have avoided the floodgates of uncertainty but also perhaps curtailing contracting parties’ flexibility

Question 45

the decision in Rock Advertsing MWB may be welcomed as havingavoided the floodgates of uncertainty however may it have done inadvertently ?

Answer 45

perhaps curtailing contracting parties’ flexibility

Question 46

Why may the judgement in Rock Advertising v MWB be concerning for?

Answer 46

for those who agree to vary arrangements in good faith and find the other part trying to avoid the revised agreement on the basis of a NOM clause

Question 47

The judgement in Rock Advertising v MWB may be concerning for for those who agree to vary arrangements in good faith and find the other part trying to avoid the revised agreement on the basis of a NOM clause however how did the UKSC recognise this?

Answer 47

they emphasised the principle of estoppel still has a role to play in safeguarding against injustice in such situations

Question 48

How was the UKSC decision in Rock Advertsing v MWB a good decision overall

Answer 48

The UKSC ultimately have a taken a course which ensures that parties have good level of certainty about their contractual relations, recognising that parties can still follow the route required by the contract to achieve a variation and that there are other legal rules that protect parties from broken promises