Contract lecture— promissory estoppel
Definition —an equitable concept that prevents a person or “estops”
them from going back on a promise, when said promise has been relied
upon - Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House
Ltd [1947] KB 130. (principle brought into full being)
an equitable doctrine which can in some instances stop a party on going
back on a promise despite the absence of consideration to support it (can
be used to enforce an agreement that might otherwise fail due to lack of
consideration)
make some kinds of promise binding even where there is no
consideration
- Not part of contract law— equitable doctrine (sometimes called
equitable estoppel); courts step in and provide alternative resolution
to case as to reach fairer outcome
- Party is legally prevented from going back on something they have
previously asserted
- Range of estoppels in law generally
Waiver
Traditionally applied where one party agrees not to enforce their strict
rights under the contract e.g. accepting delivery later than agreed
Hickman v Haynes (1875)— buyer refused delivery saying seller
breached but late delivery was made at buyer’s request means
seller could sue for breach of contract
Party waiving their rights is really only waiving the right to claim
damages for breach of contract, or to terminate for breach where
applicable; they can still claim for any payments which would have
been due during the waiver — BUT in promissory estoppel such
payments could not be claimed back- High Trees
Promissory estoppel
Doctrine originates in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877)—
landlord’s conduct (let tenant to believe that his legal rights under lease
were suspended whilst negotiations had been ongoing) was an implied
promise to the tenants that he would not enforce the forfeiture at the end
of the notice period and in not doing the repairs on the premises, the
tenants had been relying on this promise — would be inequitable to
permit time to run against tenant during this period
Definition —an equitable concept that prevents a person or “estops”
them from going back on a promise, when said promise has been relied
upon - Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House
Ltd [1947] KB 130. (principle brought into full being)
an equitable doctrine which can in some instances stop a party on going
back on a promise despite the absence of consideration to support it (can
be used to enforce an agreement that might otherwise fail due to lack of
consideration)
make some kinds of promise binding even where there is no
consideration
- Not part of contract law— equitable doctrine (sometimes called
equitable estoppel); courts step in and provide alternative resolution
to case as to reach fairer outcome
- Party is legally prevented from going back on something they have
previously asserted
- Range of estoppels in law generally
Waiver
Traditionally applied where one party agrees not to enforce their strict
rights under the contract e.g. accepting delivery later than agreed
Hickman v Haynes (1875)— buyer refused delivery saying seller
breached but late delivery was made at buyer’s request means
seller could sue for breach of contract
Party waiving their rights is really only waiving the right to claim
damages for breach of contract, or to terminate for breach where
applicable; they can still claim for any payments which would have
been due during the waiver — BUT in promissory estoppel such
payments could not be claimed back- High Trees
Promissory estoppel
Doctrine originates in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877)—
landlord’s conduct (let tenant to believe that his legal rights under lease
were suspended whilst negotiations had been ongoing) was an implied
promise to the tenants that he would not enforce the forfeiture at the end
of the notice period and in not doing the repairs on the premises, the
tenants had been relying on this promise — would be inequitable to
permit time to run against tenant during this period
