Promissory estoppel is a controversial exception Essay Example

Promissory estoppel is a controversial exception Essay Example Promissory estoppel is a controversial exception Essay Promissory estoppel is a controversial exception Essay Essay Topic: Controversial There are three exclusions to the regulation inPinnel’s instance. They are composite understanding, payment of debt by 3rd party and promissory estoppel. The regulation inPinnel’s instance ( 1602 ) 5 CoRep117ais that portion payment of debt is non good consideration to waive the balance. Thus the creditor may action for the staying debt unless there is fresh consideration. Promissory estoppel like proprietary estoppel is popular types of just estoppel. The importance of just estoppel was stated inCrabb V. Arun DC ( 1976 ) 1 Ch 179that â€Å"equity comes in †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. to extenuate the cogency of rigorous jurisprudence †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ . it prevents a individual from take a firm standing on his rigorous legal rights †¦ . when it would be unjust for him to make so holding respects to the traffics which has taken topographic point between the parties† . An illustration of promissory estoppel is where A promises B that he would non implement his legal rights and B acted and relied on it without giving any consideration, equity would non let A to renegue on on his promise to B. The modern construct of promissory estoppel was developed in the instances ofCardinal London Property trust Ltd V. High Tree House Ltd. ( 1974 ) 1 KB 130andEntire Metal Manufacturing Ltd V. Tungsten Electric Co Ltd. ( 1955 ) 1 WLR 761. Promissory estoppel differs from common jurisprudence estoppel because it has less rigorous demands and it may originate from promise of future behavior or purpose. Promissory estoppel is traceable toHughes V. Metropolitan Railway( 1877 ) 2 App Case 439. Here the landlord gave his tenant 6 months to mend the belongings else hazard forfeiture. Within the 6 months, dialogue for the sale of the rental was opened between landlord and renter. The dialogue failed after 6 months and the renter failed to mend. The landlord sought to implement forfeiture. It was held that the landlord had led the renter by his behavior to believe that the landlord would non implement forfeiture. InHigh Tree House Ltd instance,the landlord promised to have from the tenant half of the land rent because of the trouble of happening renters during wartime period. After the war, the flats became occupied and the landlord sued for outstanding arrears during the wartime. The tribunal germinating the rule of promissory estoppel held that the landlord was non entitled to the arrears rent of the wartime period. Promissory estoppel occurs when there is a contractual relationship between parties. Like when there is a legal relationship between the promisee and the promiser. It remains unsettled whether promissory estoppel may originate in pre-contractual relationships. However, Lord Denning inBrinkom Investments Ltd V. Carr ( 1979 ) Calciumwas of the position that promissory estoppel may originate from promise made by parties negociating contracts. Similar positions was expressed in Durham Fancy Goods V. Michael Jackson ( 1969 ) 2 QB 839 where Donaldson J. held that contractual relationship is irrelevant provided that there is â€Å"a preexistent legal relationship which could, in certain fortunes, give rise to liabilities and penalties† . The first demand of promissory estoppel is that the promiser must give clear and unambiguous statement that he does non mean to implement his legal rights. The promise may be express or implied. The 2nd demand is that promisee must hold acted on that promise made by the promiser. Promissory estoppel frequently originate where promisee in trust on that promise suffered hurt as inAjayi V. Briscoe ( 1964 ) 1 WLR 1326; or where he alters his place as a consequence of trusting on that promise when though he suffers no hurt. InAlan Co. Ltd V El Nasr A ; Import Co. ( 1972 ) 2QB 18, Lord Denningheld that hurt is non an indispensable component of promissory estoppel. Therefore, for a supplication of promissory estoppel to win, there must be a alteration in fortunes of the promisee. The 3rd demand of promissory estoppel is that it would be unjust for the promiser to renegue on on his promise and claim his rigorous legal rights after the promisee had relied on it. The 4th demand of promissory estoppel is that it can non non be enforce against the promissor. Thus it can be used merely as a defense mechanism and therefore can non be used as a blade. In Combe V. Combe ( 1951 ) CA, the tribunal held that promissory estoppel does non make a cause of action and as such the demand of consideration in formation of contract is still relevant. Promissory estoppel is a regulation of grounds that prevents the promissor from denying the truth of statement which the promisee had relied. However, this demand seemed changed in visible radiation of the determinations inRe Wyven Developments ( 1974 ) 1 WLR 1097andEvenden V. Guildford City AFC ( 1975 )QB 917, here the tribunals held â€Å"that promissory estoppel can be a cause of action† . The tribunals use an nonsubjective trial to find whether it was sensible to trust on a promise. Thus certain promises like menaces would non amount to promissory estoppel where tribunal decides that trust on it was unequal. Furthermore, if the promisee did non trust on the promise, there would be valid statement that it was non unjust for the promiser to travel back on his promise. Promissory estoppel may for good snuff out the rights of the promissor to claim ball amount after part-payment. InD A ; C Builders v Rees ( 1965 ) 2QB 617,Lord Denningexpressed that the â€Å"promissor would non be allowed to return to his rigorous legal rights and that the promissory estoppel will be concluding if promisee understood the promise to intend concluding extinction of promissors’ rights rigorous legal rights† . However, for periodic payment promissory estoppel simply suspends the right of the promissor to the debt until such clip when it becomes just to claim the balance. Therefore, in periodic payments, promissory estoppel may snuff out the right of the promissor to claim payment for the suspended period but can do claim for subsequent periods after giving sensible notice or when the fortunes that gave rise to the fortunes alterations. InEntire Metal instance, the tribunal held that â€Å"on giving sensible notice to the other party, revert to their legal entitlement to have the compensation payments†