Lord Denning, in High Trees, set out the test for promissory estoppel, which consists of three requirements, in addition to the limitation of operation that it may not be used as a cause of action. To estop the promisor from enforcing his legal right, there must be: 1. a clear and unequivocal promise not to insist on strict contractual rights (intended to affect the legal relations between parties); 2. the promisee must reasonably rely on the promise; 3. it must be inequitable for the promisor to resile from the promise.
Another, more developed, form of equitable estoppel is proprietary estoppel, which will arise from a belief that an interest in another party’s land has been granted. This type of estoppel is free from the restriction that it may only be used as a defence.
However, in the Australian case of Walton Stores, promissory estoppel has been recognised as giving rise to a cause of action; …show more content…
Firstly, they could keep existing alongside each other to give courts “a range of legal options to achieve a just and fair result” fitted to every particular case. Brennan J endorsed this approach in Walton Stores, rebutting the argument that the two are irreconcilable. This seems to be the most sensible approach, at least to begin with, seeing as consideration is a doctrine so dearly held on to by many. Secondly, consideration could be completely abolished. Many legal systems do well without it, e.g. in the German law, mere agreement in the form of a declaration of intent is enough to legally bind parties. If consideration was done away with, promissory estoppel would not be needed to circumvent it. Lastly, the two could be combined, with an intention to contract or reliance being capable of constituting consideration as well as the traditionally accepted forms. However, this might lead to the confusion, with the requirement for intention to create legal relations more or less subsuming
Another, more developed, form of equitable estoppel is proprietary estoppel, which will arise from a belief that an interest in another party’s land has been granted. This type of estoppel is free from the restriction that it may only be used as a defence.
However, in the Australian case of Walton Stores, promissory estoppel has been recognised as giving rise to a cause of action; …show more content…
Firstly, they could keep existing alongside each other to give courts “a range of legal options to achieve a just and fair result” fitted to every particular case. Brennan J endorsed this approach in Walton Stores, rebutting the argument that the two are irreconcilable. This seems to be the most sensible approach, at least to begin with, seeing as consideration is a doctrine so dearly held on to by many. Secondly, consideration could be completely abolished. Many legal systems do well without it, e.g. in the German law, mere agreement in the form of a declaration of intent is enough to legally bind parties. If consideration was done away with, promissory estoppel would not be needed to circumvent it. Lastly, the two could be combined, with an intention to contract or reliance being capable of constituting consideration as well as the traditionally accepted forms. However, this might lead to the confusion, with the requirement for intention to create legal relations more or less subsuming