Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Requirements of Promissory Estoppel |
(i) Clear and unambiguous representation (ii) Representee relies on representation (iii) Inequitable to go back on the promise |
|
|
Clear and unambiguous representation |
Made by promisor, can be made by words or conduct. Court may find an implied promise Woodhouse Israel Cocoa |
|
|
Representee relies on representation cases |
Hughes v Met Railway Central London Property v High Trees House |
|
|
Hughes v Met Railway (Held) |
There was an implied promise that the landlord would not enforce the forfeiture of the lease even if the tenant did not carry out the repairs, because of the ongoing negotiations. Tenant relied upon it, so landlord estopped from going back on promise. |
|
|
Central London Property v High Trees House (Held) |
The sub-tenants had relied on the main tenants promise that he would only ask for half-rent. This meant the arrears could not be claimed back, despite the fact that the promise for lower rent had not been supported by consideration. Denning LJ created doctrine of PE. Creates rift with Foakes v Beer due to lack of consideration? Distinction can be made because Foakes concerns a debt and High Trees concerns payment of money up front "A promise was made which was intended to create legal relations and which, to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made and which was in fact so acted on" |
|
|
Collier v P+MJ Wright Holdings |
Collier used High Trees in a debt case, creating rift with Foakes v Beer. Arden LJ "If (i) a debtor offers to part-pay, and (ii) the creditor voluntarily accepts the lesser sum, and (iii) in reliance with that acceptance the debtor only pays part, the creditor will be bound to accept this and waive his right to further payment, in full and final satisfaction of the debt. To resile himself of this would be inequitable." |
|
|
Promissory estoppel can not be used as a cause of action, only as a defence (case) |
Combe v Combe. Even though it was inequitable for husband to go back on promise to pay more, the wife could not use promissory estoppel to enforce contract (as it lacked consideration), because PE cannot be used as a cause of action. NB: Proprietary estoppel can be a cause of action |
