• 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

    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

  2. Proprietory estoppel

    ELEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL In order to rely on this doctrine, there are 5 requirements or elements to be fulfilled: A pre-existing contractual relationship It is suggested that promissory estoppel cannot exist from nowhere. There must already be an existing legal relationship between the parties in order to raise promissory estoppel.

  1. Williams v. Roffey and Foakes v. Beer

    The third factor acknowledges that there may well be factual benefit to a creditor accepting less than is owed him (else why would he accept it?) but maintains that this should not be viewed as a legal benefit. Money, it is argued, is fundamentally different from services and other assets

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

    Another similar case is Central London Property Ltd v High Trees House Ltd4. Because of war, the defendants, being unable to let many of their flats out, reduced the rent. The claimant agreed. However, this promise was unsupported by consideration.

  1. Consideration and Existing Contractual Duty

    The issue in SCT's case was the enforceability of an agreement to vary (by delaying) the date on which SCT would deliver blended oil under an existing contract. Based on the facts, Coleman J found additional consideration from SCT for the variation in its promise to overcome the unexpected problems in achieving effective blending of the oil.

  2. Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 512.

    Due to the plaintiff, the contractors had to suffer damage of �18,121.4346. According to the judge, the contractors' promise to pay an additional �10,300 was only an oral agreement between the defendants and the plaintiff. He also noticed that the carpenter had been doing substantial work in 17 flats but it was however not completed.

  1. Explain in detail consideration in a contract, and evaluate equitable estoppel.

    forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable. If one party voluntarily performs an act, and the other party then makes a promise, the consideration for the promise is said to be in the past.

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

    87) A third necessity of promissory estoppel is that ?it must be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on his promise ? (Poole, Casebook on Contract Law, 2012, p. 157). With regards to this constraint of promissory estoppel ?this will usually be satisfied by demonstrating that the promisee has acted in reliance upon the promise? (McKendrick, 2013, p.

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