Promissory Estoppel
Chen - Wishart Ch 3 - see 3.3
Changing contracts
- The doctrine of consideration is a common law doctrine
- It is applicable to the making of contracts
- AND
- It is applicable to the variation of contracts
Promises of more money
- More money for no more work;
- Stilk v Myrick
- More money for more work;
- Hartley v ponsonby
Williams v Roffey
- More money for no more work
- But an additional practical benefit over and above the work done
Debts
- A debt is a contractual obligation to pay a certain sum of money
- Any agreement to vary the sum to be paid would need consideration at common law
Pinnel’s case 1602
- The payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater is no satisfaction of the whole
- “... the gift of a horse, hawk or robe, etc in satisfaction is good. For it shall be intended that a horse, hawk, or
robe, etc might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money..”
Foakes v beer (1884)
- “.. all men of business.. Do everyday recognise and act on the ground that prompt payment of a part of their
demand may be more beneficial to them than it would be to insist on their rights and enforce payment of the
whole. Even where the debtor is perfectly solvent, and sure to pay at the lase, this is often so. Where the credit
of the debtor is doubtful it must be more so”
- Lord Blackburn
MWB v Rock
- Pinnel's case and Foakes v Beer are still good law! It's not the money
- An additional practical benefit over and about the money paid can be consideration
- The gift of the horse, hawk or robe is no different in principle from the conferral of a benefit or advantage -
practical benefit sought by MWB in keeping rock in the premises - but SC said just because a practical
advantage, the CA were wrong to find it contractually Binding.
, Case Did the promisee do consideration why?
more?
Stilk No No No added benefit for new promise
Hartley Yes Yes Added benefit directly from promisee for new
promise
Roffey No Yes Practical benefit derived (but not directly from
promisee)
Pinnel No No No added benefit
Foakes No No No added benefit
Re selectmove No No No added benefit
MWB v Rock No No - SC Practical benefits not recognised as consideration
Estoppel
- Equity’s answer to changing existing contracts
- ‘... equity may be described as that part of the law which, immediately prior to the coming into force of the
supreme court of judicature acts 1873 and 1875 on 1 november 1875, was enforced exclusively in the court of
chancery and not at all in the courts of common law, common pleas, exchequer and kings bench’
- Philip H Pettit, equity and the law of trusts - (12th edn OUP 2012)
By the end of the fourteenth century, petitions began to be addressed to the chancellor alone seeking a different
answer to the common law answer
- ‘... new law was being created and it was this new law that became known as ‘equity’, in contrast to the
common law dispensed in the common law courts’ - Pettit
Equity Prevails
- If equity and the common law were in conflict legal supremacy was vested in chancery and not the common law
courts
- ‘... equity (turned) into a system of law almost as fixed and rigid as the rules of the common law’ - pettit
Equity
- Since the judicature acts (1873-5) ‘the two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side
by side and do not mingle their waters…’
- Ashburner’s principles of equity, 2nd ed (1933), p.18
So two systems
- Separates
- All in one box
Same box different systems
- Common law
- Equity
They don't work in the same way
Denning J
Central london property trust v high trees house (1947) KB 130
- Rent £2,500 p.a for block of flats
Chen - Wishart Ch 3 - see 3.3
Changing contracts
- The doctrine of consideration is a common law doctrine
- It is applicable to the making of contracts
- AND
- It is applicable to the variation of contracts
Promises of more money
- More money for no more work;
- Stilk v Myrick
- More money for more work;
- Hartley v ponsonby
Williams v Roffey
- More money for no more work
- But an additional practical benefit over and above the work done
Debts
- A debt is a contractual obligation to pay a certain sum of money
- Any agreement to vary the sum to be paid would need consideration at common law
Pinnel’s case 1602
- The payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater is no satisfaction of the whole
- “... the gift of a horse, hawk or robe, etc in satisfaction is good. For it shall be intended that a horse, hawk, or
robe, etc might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money..”
Foakes v beer (1884)
- “.. all men of business.. Do everyday recognise and act on the ground that prompt payment of a part of their
demand may be more beneficial to them than it would be to insist on their rights and enforce payment of the
whole. Even where the debtor is perfectly solvent, and sure to pay at the lase, this is often so. Where the credit
of the debtor is doubtful it must be more so”
- Lord Blackburn
MWB v Rock
- Pinnel's case and Foakes v Beer are still good law! It's not the money
- An additional practical benefit over and about the money paid can be consideration
- The gift of the horse, hawk or robe is no different in principle from the conferral of a benefit or advantage -
practical benefit sought by MWB in keeping rock in the premises - but SC said just because a practical
advantage, the CA were wrong to find it contractually Binding.
, Case Did the promisee do consideration why?
more?
Stilk No No No added benefit for new promise
Hartley Yes Yes Added benefit directly from promisee for new
promise
Roffey No Yes Practical benefit derived (but not directly from
promisee)
Pinnel No No No added benefit
Foakes No No No added benefit
Re selectmove No No No added benefit
MWB v Rock No No - SC Practical benefits not recognised as consideration
Estoppel
- Equity’s answer to changing existing contracts
- ‘... equity may be described as that part of the law which, immediately prior to the coming into force of the
supreme court of judicature acts 1873 and 1875 on 1 november 1875, was enforced exclusively in the court of
chancery and not at all in the courts of common law, common pleas, exchequer and kings bench’
- Philip H Pettit, equity and the law of trusts - (12th edn OUP 2012)
By the end of the fourteenth century, petitions began to be addressed to the chancellor alone seeking a different
answer to the common law answer
- ‘... new law was being created and it was this new law that became known as ‘equity’, in contrast to the
common law dispensed in the common law courts’ - Pettit
Equity Prevails
- If equity and the common law were in conflict legal supremacy was vested in chancery and not the common law
courts
- ‘... equity (turned) into a system of law almost as fixed and rigid as the rules of the common law’ - pettit
Equity
- Since the judicature acts (1873-5) ‘the two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side
by side and do not mingle their waters…’
- Ashburner’s principles of equity, 2nd ed (1933), p.18
So two systems
- Separates
- All in one box
Same box different systems
- Common law
- Equity
They don't work in the same way
Denning J
Central london property trust v high trees house (1947) KB 130
- Rent £2,500 p.a for block of flats
