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

Promissory Estoppel is a shield not a sword

Extracts from this document...


"Promissory estoppel may be used as a shield but not a sword" English Law defines promissory estoppel as "a principle of justice and of equity. It comes to this: when a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it when it would be unjust or inequitable for him to so."1 Estoppel provides a way in which promises can be legally binding even if no consideration has been given. The importance of promissory estoppel in contract law is that it has enabled legal obligations, which fall into the category of contract law but fail to show any consideration, to be argued for. Promissory estoppel relates to a future contract or a form of future conduct, where a promise, or something very much resembling a promise, is made in future tense not to do something. It prevents a party from acting in a certain way because the first party promised not to do something, and the second party relied on that promise and acted upon it. The courts of Equity made it clear that in certain cases a person could not go back on such a future promise, thus proving to be binding despite the fact that no consideration had been given. The statement that "promissory estoppel may be used as a shield but not a sword"2 was introduced by the council in the case of Combe v Combe3 and was later approved by Birkett LJ. ...read more.


This case demonstrates how promissory estoppel is implemented as a shield in the English legal system. The effect that promissory estoppel has on the promisee's position is that although the promisee need not provide any consideration for the promisor's promise they cannot sue on that promise, as they have not given any consideration. In this way the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used as a cause of action in itself as it does not act in a way that it confers new rights on the promisee, it only operates to prevent the promisor from fully enforcing their rights against the promisee, and in this way it acts as a shield, not a sword. The effect of promissory estoppel on the legal rights of the promisor is, in effect, to "suspend but not fully extinguish the promisor's strict legal rights,"15 enabling those rights to be re-established and resumed. This can only take place once reasonable notice has been given to the promisee of the intention of their plans and providing that the promisee is able to resume their previous position. In this way promissory estoppel ensures that the promisee is shielded from any unfair dealings of the promisor but the promisor is not in danger of any reverse action such as being sued. The statement "promissory estoppel may be used as a shield but not a sword," a well as being the most famous in reference to the use of promissory estoppel, is also very apt in the description of the way in which promissory estoppel works. ...read more.


from suffering detriment."24 1 Lord Denning LJ, Moorgate Mercantile v Twitchings [1976] 1 QB 225 2 Birkett LJ, Combe v Combe [1951] 2 K.B. 215 3 Combe v Combe [1951] 2 K.B. 215 4 Oxford English Dictionary, second edition 1989 5 Oxford English Dictionary, second edition 1989 6 Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130 7 Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1876-77) L.R. 2 App. Cas. 439 8 Birmingham & District Land Co v London & North Western Railway Co [1887] L.R. 34 Ch. D. 261 9 Combe v Combe [1951] 2 K.B. 215 10 Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130 11 Lord Denning LJ, Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 12 Combe v Combe [1951] 2 K.B. 215 13 Lord Denning LJ, Combe v Combe [1951] 2 K.B. 215 14 Lord Denning LJ, Combe v Combe [1951] 2 K.B. 215 15 Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd. [1995] 1 W.L.R. 7611 W.L.R. 761 16 "The offensive limits of promissory estoppel" Roger Halson, 1999 17 "The offensive limits of promissory estoppel" Roger Halson, 1999, p1. 18 Crabb v Arun D.C. [1976] Ch. 179, p.198. 19 Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co Rep 117a 20 Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co Rep 117a 21 Foakes v. Beer [1884] 9 App Cas 605. 22 Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130 23 Combe v Combe [1951] 2 K.B. 215 24 Crabb v Arun D.C. [1976] Ch.179, p.189 ...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. This paper discusses the start-up, organisation and conduct of the company "Anders & Birgitte" ...

    the Valentines Design, even though S had postponed the delivery date until the 10th of February, i.e. the delivery and passing of risk will now happen by the 10th of February. The interests of the parties must be balanced, indicating that B is not allowed to speculate in the price developments for a very long time.

  2. Proprietory estoppel

    PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL The principles lay down in equitable estoppel or in Hughes case was applied 70 years later by Denning J or later known as Lord Denning in High Trees case. In this case, Denning J had suggested in obiter dictum, that where a promise to accept less had been

  1. Williams v. Roffey and Foakes v. Beer

    All are in substance intangible benefits; reassurance of performance amounts to no more than sentimental value, generally regarded as insufficient consideration. One can equally derive satisfaction from a gratuitous promise, but an extension to this in terms of the intangible and arguably self-generated benefit given in return would emasculate

  2. Promissory Estoppel

    However, the original contract suspended for the mean time will come into force when the circumstances of the promise no longer apply. Denning J therefore found that the defendants were bound to pay the original rent of £2,500 after the wartime and when the flats were substantially or fully let out.

  1. "The rigid application of the Rule in Pinnel's Case has frequently caused hardship. ...

    acted on accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him, but

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

    Instead, its applicability is highly dependant on the complete fulfillment of the stipulated conditions. The conditions and how they may obstruct the enforcement of unsupported promises relied upon are as follows: 1. There must be a pre-existing contractual or other legal relationship between the parties.

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

    This meant that, "the consideration provided by one party need not equal in value the consideration provided by the other party."25(Thomas v Thomas (1842))26 Since this case it was assumed that consideration must have at least some economic value, and that it must be, "...something which has some value in the eye of the law."27 (mf...)

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

    and this happens often enough whereby a judge will refer back to the doctrine consideration when illustrating a point on promissory estoppel in order to demonstrate that either these two doctrines can or cannot coincide together. The second element of promissory estoppel is ? that the promise or representation

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