"The rigid application of the Rule in Pinnel's Case has frequently caused hardship. Explain the rule and evaluate the extent to which its application has been mitigated by the development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

The first 200 words of this essay...

Doctrine of Consideration and Promissory Estoppel

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

Explain the rule and evaluate the extent to which its application has been mitigated by the development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was developed in the late nineteenth century for the purpose of preventing injustice where one party goes back on their promise when the other party is in reliance of that promise. The doctrine was first established in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. [1877]1 and has been developing till date. The doctrine cannot be used as a cause of action; it is simply a doctrine of defence as illustrated in Combe v Combe [1951]2. In Pinnel's case, Common law ruled that if a debtor paid a lessor sum to the creditor from the due amount and the creditor accepts with no obligation then the promise is invalid. The contradictory nature of the two rules have caused conflict in the law as to what rules should really be applied.

The conflict of the Common law ruling has caused much hardship and conflict since the introduction on promissory estoppel. In Pinnel's case3