Doctrine Of Promissory Estoppel: The Case Of CLP V Trees

Amazing Essays
Introduction Doctrine of promissory estoppel is deemed as an exception to the general principle that a promise may only be enforced if it is supported by good consideration. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was first established in the case of CLP v Trees. Even though promissory estoppel is seen an advantage, it does consist some flaws that can have repercussion due to its inconsistency. However it does help weaker parties in legal matters where the doctrine of consideration neglects those parties. This will be discussed into further details in the essay.

Main Body
When there is an exchange of promises between two parties a contract is formed. They can either be a promisor or a promisee, as they both mush either receive a benefit or
…show more content…
Promissory estoppel is made as a defence to protect a person. The first benefit of promissory estoppel is that it protects innocent individuals who are in a weaker position of the legal issue raised. Hence, weaker parties benefit from this doctrine, as they are usually up against strong parties such as employers or companies or landlords. In simplest words, promissory estoppel is used in order to prevent the promisor that created the contract from taking advantage of the general rule, hence making the promise binding even if there is no …show more content…
Its absence may even void the contract. However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is a doctrine, which binds an agreement without the need of consideration. By comparing the basis of these doctrines, it would be reasonable for one to say that the doctrine of promissory estoppels is in a sense more lenient than the doctrine of consideration. This is because the doctrine of promissory estoppel may be more easily satisfied than the doctrine of consideration, hence the reason for it being an exception to the doctrine of

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Truth Is Good Analysis

    • 1528 Words
    • 7 Pages

    In this case morality trumps the pursuit of truth. Lynch files truth under prima facie good, because he still believes that truth is good in itself, but some virtues should take precedence over truth. After describing the difference between cognitive good and moral good, Lynch focuses of context and significance in good beliefs. After examining that some truths and beliefs are not good to pursue Lynch uses significance to filter out the truths not good to have. Significant truth is truth that we actively want to pursue, after accounting for our preferences (Lynch 52).…

    • 1528 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this case, it’s best for the weaker state to cease the behavior it prefers (and accept whatever losses come with that cessation) and absorb the benefits of complying with the demands of the stronger state. While on the surface the coercion theory might seem to be a subset of the persuasion theory, in that the state is choosing an option based on a perceived benefit, this is in fact not the case. First, the difference between the coercion and persuasion theories is adverse effects against positive effects. Coercion is about compliance to avoid being punished or affected adversely, while persuasion is to seek out the best possible option. It’s the difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and choosing the better of two benefits.…

    • 1948 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Since it is clearly the second rule, then the right act is to follow that rule. There are times where the justice system doesn’t follow that rule. Does a rule allowing the violation of people's rights bring about more happiness than a rule prohibiting actions that violate people's rights? No, so follow the rule prohibiting the violation of people's rights. Rules against lying, and in favor of loyalty (favoritism) to friends/family would also promote the greatest happiness and so following those rules is…

    • 1557 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    (Sinnot Armstrong Section 4) A problem that arises by utilizing a modest contrast class is that an individual can be justified in a belief but lack the qualification. If the contrast class is limited to the choice A and alternatives B, C, and D, an action can be justified if A proves B, C, and D morally wrong. The reason people can be unqualified when utilizing a modest contrast class is that a new option could be presented, choice E. Choice E is not considered so choice A cannot be justified unless A refutes E. (Copp 812) For day to day decisions the use of a modest contrast class is acceptable and generally used because certain extremes are typically refuted. Unknown or unconceived alternatives can be added to a contrast class through newly presented evidence. Evidence is crucial to moral skepticism because it determines how we justify our thoughts so whenever possible one should always strive to understand all aspects of a situation.…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This is because I place more value in the motivation of an action, rather than the outcomes. A key problem with consequentialism, which I reflected on in this previous entry, is moral luck. Personally, I find the notion incongruous; it sets a dangerous precedent considering that it can be applied to justify morally questionable acts as for the ‘greater good’ (Woodcock, 2010). Additionally, a further issue I have with consequentialism is the lack of distinction between intentional and unintentional outcomes (Lenman, 2000). I feel unpremeditated outcomes should have less bearing when appraising the morality of a decision, unless said outcome was a glaring omission.…

    • 1036 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Third Party Omissions

    • 1016 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Firstly, the essay looked at the category of actions, where the defendant agrees to act or voluntarily accepts a responsibility, but later fails to do so. It is argued that this category demonstrates assumption of responsibility as fair because taking upon a responsibility, voluntary or contractually renders one to rely upon that person to deliver that specific care. If one could later fail to carry out the responsibility and this omission caused harm, it would not deter people from committing such torts if one was not imposed with liability. Secondly, the category of special relationships has been conceded here to be fair, as having that proximity and causing an omission is not right or justifiable.…

    • 1016 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Additionally, civil disobedience may be set aside as the pis aller but this would defer justice and consequently form a bigger issue (Lefkowitz 212). Furthermore, although a person has a responsibility to follow state laws in exchange for experiencing the advantages of residing in that state, such a convention does not include unfair laws as they are proscribed. Lastly, civil disobedience may counteract the greater iniquity of repression thus it is a public benefit in such instances (Olsen 220). There is nothing to lose with civil disobedience because if the majority opinion is not changed by civil disobedience, justice and stability remains sustained. However, civil disobedience strengthens the possibility of improvement.…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The main reason of compatibilism is better than incompatibilism is that compatibilism think that freewill and determinism are compatible with each other and with this concept the conflict between freewill and determinism is abolished. Whereas, incompatibilism producing confliction between freewill and determinism by saying that they both are opposite to each other. But, compatibilism was unable to give proper definition of freewill. Compatibilism…

    • 1162 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    SR for some, is a way to explain such discrepancies. For if an experience fails to correspond with the truth, it is merely misrepresenting the object in question. Weak representationalism (who grant both intentional and qualitative contents to mental states) however, can also account for veracity, which makes the argument ineffectual in proving SR. Arguments for SR: Materialism A materialist will be more inclined to accept SR, since it provides a simple solution to the problem of having to explain immaterial objects, such as the qualitative aspect of qualia. SR maintains however, that mental states are purely intentional and not qualitative, which reinforces its compatibilism with materialism.…

    • 1251 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    IV. Conclusion A court is likely to find that Benedict can enforce the agreement because Adrian’s cancellation was ineffective. However, a court is likely to rule that the deduction of Catherine’s share was illegal because the requirements for variation were not…

    • 1510 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays