• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Promissory estoppel and consideration

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'Promissory estoppel is a necessary supplement to the doctrine of consideration, because it enables courts to enforce promises that have been relied upon even though the promise was not part of an exchange.' Discuss Promissory estoppel is of a different nature from the doctrine of consideration. Some may contend that it is unnecessary to have promissory estoppel since consideration will suffice for justice; there are also economic arguments that extra costs may be involved to disclaim promissory intentions in a gratuitous promisei. I however, disagree and the reasons are as follow. Doctrine of consideration In order for a contract to be valid, consideration has to be present. It is one of the tests of legal enforceability. The basic idea is that of 'reciprocity'ii, in order to acquire the right to enforce an undertaking, a party must undertake or actually give something stipulated by the other as the price. iii The requirement of nexus must be met. Firstly, consideration must move from the promisee, but it need not move to the promisor. A third party can enforce a contract made for his benefit. iv Secondly, consideration has to be requested by the promisor. In Combe v. Combev, the court held that the husband had not requested the wife not to apply for maintenance and thus the promise to pay wasn't enforceable. Thirdly, past consideration is not good consideration. The consideration was already completed before the promise is made, nothing new is given in return. ...read more.

Middle

The House of Lords held that the tenant was entitled to equitable relief against forfeiture on the ground that the running of the six-month period was suspended during the negotiations to purchase the lease and did not recommence until the negotiations broke down. Hughes was resurrected by Denning J in the prominent case of Central London Property Ltd v. High Trees House Ltdxviii. In 1937 the claimants(C) let a block of flats in London to the defendants(H) at an annual rent of �2500. In 1940, the war caused evacuation of people and the defendant could not sublet enough flats to generate the rent so the claimant agreed to halve the rent. When the property market returned to normal and the flats were fully let, the claimant requested and the defendant refused to resume payment of the entire rent. Denning J held that the claimants were entitled to demand the entire rent from the date of their notice in 1945. This means that the claimant would be estopped from back payment of the rent forgone between 1940 and 1945 had they sought it. Both cases above shows the equitable principle and illustrates the protection of promisees who have relied on promises given by promisors. The five elements of promissory estoppel that construct a threshold so that not all promises could be enforced will be discussed here. The first is that there must be a clear and unequivocal promise or representation. ...read more.

Conclusion

It is necessary to have promissory estoppel since as shown above, consideration does not cover such grounds. Equity and justice should be the priority of the court and the doctrine of promissory estoppel can uphold this. i Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (2nd edn, 1977, pp 67-70 ii E. McKendrick, Contract Law, Palgrave Macmillan 2007, pp 85 iii M. Chen-Wishart, Contract Law, OUP 2007, pp 124 iv Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 16.1.4 v Combe v. Combe [1951] 2KB 215 (CA) vi Eastwood v. Kenyon [1840] 11 A & E 438 vii M. Chen-Wishart, Contract Law, OUP 2007, pp 129 viii E. McKendrick, Contract Law, Palgrave Macmillan 2007, pp 107 ix Ward v. Byham [1956] 2 ALL ER 318 x Shadwell v. Shadwell [1860] 9 CBNS 159, 30 LJCP 145 xi Stilk v. Myrick [1809] 2 Camp 317, 170 ER 851; 6Esp 129, 170 ER 851, King's Bench xii Williams v. Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1; [1990] 1 ALL ER 512, CA xiii M. Chen-Wishart, Contract Law, OUP 2007, pp 154 xiv Foakes v. Beer (1884) [1881-5] ALL ER Rep 106, HL xv Re Selectmove Ltd [1994] BCC 349, [1995] 1 WLR 474 xvi M. Chen-Wishart, Contract Law, OUP 2007, pp 170 xvii Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] 2 App Cas 439 xviii Central London Property Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 xix M. Chen-Wishart, Contract Law, OUP 2007, pp 171 xx E. McKendrick, Contract Law, Palgrave Macmillan 2007, pp 118 xxi Waltons Stores (interstate) Ltd v. Maher [1988] 164 CLR 387 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Contract Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Contract Law essays

  1. Promissory Estoppel is a shield not a sword

    A test case was brought to see if the landlord's promise to reduce the rent was legally enforceable. The principle of promissory estoppel is demonstrated to be, in this case, that it does not grant new causes of action to the promisee where none previously existed.

  2. Promissory Estoppel

    This can be found in Combe v Combe4 where the promise of maintenance by the husband was not allowed to apply this doctrine as there is no existing legal relation prior to the promise5. Promissory estoppel cannot be applied in Combe v Combe as it was not meant to render

  1. Consideration and Existing Contractual Duty

    However, this takes no account of practical benefits or detriment. Often, we choose the more convenient way of solving a problem - the promise to accept extra or less money against the alternatives which my confront the promisor, such as termination or reformation of contract.

  2. TOPIC 3 Consideration

    3.6.6 Scholarship agreements Scholarship agreements: Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976, s 4(c) Effect of scholarship agreements entered into by minors: University of Malaya v Lee Ming Chong [1986] 2 MLJ 148 HC 3.6.7 Payment of debts (lesser sum): accord and satisfaction Common law: General rule: payment of a smaller sum is not a satisfaction of an obligation to pay a larger sum.

  1. Promissory estoppel is a necessary supplement to the doctrine of consideration, because it enables ...

    However, this promise was unsupported by consideration. Post-war, the property market settled and the flats were fully let. The claimants demanded that the defendants resume payment of the entire rent from 1945 but the defendants refused. Denning J held that using promissory estoppel, the claimants were entitled to full rent from the post-war period.

  2. Proprietory estoppel

    By this, Denning J means that plaintiffs in High Trees case would not be entitled to recover the rent for the period of 1940-1945, albeit that there was no consideration for the reduced rent.21. The true function of promissory estoppel is to estopped a promisor to 'go back' to his promise where the promisee had relied on.

  1. "Intention to create legal relations could be used to replace the doctrine of consideration. ...

    governed by the maxim ex nudo pacto non oritur action (a right of action does not arise out of a naked agreement.)"10 English law does not rely on formalities as a way of identifying intention to create a legally binding contract.

  2. Explain how the doctrine of consideration relates to the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

    ?there may be no consideration moving from him who benefits by the waiver. There may be no detriment to him by acting on it. There may be nothing in writing. Nevertheless, the one who waives his strict rights cannot afterwards insist on them.? (Burrows, 2007, p.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work