PART 2 WRITING QUESTION
This essay will advise Rohan on whether he needs to start paying the original rent
again and if he owes Hansaj £100. It will also determine if Rohan is eligible to get
£30 from Sheila.
For a contract to be binding there should be three components agreement,
consideration, and intention to create legal relations. Hansaj agreed to reduce the
rent by £50 per month is an agreement. Consideration is defined as a price for a
promise or something in return as in the case of Currie v Misa. Applying the facts
Rohan was the tenant of Hansaj so there was the payment of rent in exchange for
the right to occupy and use a Hansaj property. As they were tenant and landlord so
there was also an intention to create legal relations.
Downward variation is defined as part payment of undisputed debt. Applying the
facts the rent of the workshop is £100 but Hansraj agreed to reduce the rent by £50
per month. The basic rule of downward variation is Pinnels’ rule which says part
payment is not a sufficient consideration this means that if a debtor offers less than
the full amount owed as part payment, the creditor can still sue for the remaining
balance owed, unless there is additional consideration provided by the debtor.
Foakes v Beer reinforces the principle established in Pinnel’s rule regarding part
payment of debts which provides that partial payment of a debt is not sufficient
consideration for a promise by a creditor to forgo the balance.
Applying the facts Rohan paid £50 because he had financial difficulties and might
have to close his business which is part payment to full £100 and he did not offer
any additional consideration or any different performance so Hansaj can still ask for
reduced rent for the past two months.
Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a party from going back on a
promise made to another party if the latter has relied on that promise to their
detriment. The High Trees case strongly established the principle of promissory
estoppel. Applying the key elements of promissory estoppel
1. Promise to forgo legal rights: Hansaj promised to reduce Rohan's rent by £50 per
month due to Rohan's financial difficulties. This promise indicates a willingness to
forgo her legal right to the full rent amount.
2. Reliance: Rohan relied on Hansaj's promise to his detriment. He continued to
operate his bicycle repair business in the rented workshop, presumably with the
expectation that the reduced rent would continue.
3. Inequitable to Go Back on Promise: It would not be inequitable for Hansaj to go
back on her promise to ask for the original £100 because Hansaj demanded this
when he found out about Rohan’s lucrative contract. This could be seen in the case
of Alan v El Nasr which established that detrimental reliance is not a requirement of
promissory estoppel. It only needs to be established that the promisor has changed
their position. Applying the facts Rohan managed to negotiate a lucrative contract to
1
This essay will advise Rohan on whether he needs to start paying the original rent
again and if he owes Hansaj £100. It will also determine if Rohan is eligible to get
£30 from Sheila.
For a contract to be binding there should be three components agreement,
consideration, and intention to create legal relations. Hansaj agreed to reduce the
rent by £50 per month is an agreement. Consideration is defined as a price for a
promise or something in return as in the case of Currie v Misa. Applying the facts
Rohan was the tenant of Hansaj so there was the payment of rent in exchange for
the right to occupy and use a Hansaj property. As they were tenant and landlord so
there was also an intention to create legal relations.
Downward variation is defined as part payment of undisputed debt. Applying the
facts the rent of the workshop is £100 but Hansraj agreed to reduce the rent by £50
per month. The basic rule of downward variation is Pinnels’ rule which says part
payment is not a sufficient consideration this means that if a debtor offers less than
the full amount owed as part payment, the creditor can still sue for the remaining
balance owed, unless there is additional consideration provided by the debtor.
Foakes v Beer reinforces the principle established in Pinnel’s rule regarding part
payment of debts which provides that partial payment of a debt is not sufficient
consideration for a promise by a creditor to forgo the balance.
Applying the facts Rohan paid £50 because he had financial difficulties and might
have to close his business which is part payment to full £100 and he did not offer
any additional consideration or any different performance so Hansaj can still ask for
reduced rent for the past two months.
Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a party from going back on a
promise made to another party if the latter has relied on that promise to their
detriment. The High Trees case strongly established the principle of promissory
estoppel. Applying the key elements of promissory estoppel
1. Promise to forgo legal rights: Hansaj promised to reduce Rohan's rent by £50 per
month due to Rohan's financial difficulties. This promise indicates a willingness to
forgo her legal right to the full rent amount.
2. Reliance: Rohan relied on Hansaj's promise to his detriment. He continued to
operate his bicycle repair business in the rented workshop, presumably with the
expectation that the reduced rent would continue.
3. Inequitable to Go Back on Promise: It would not be inequitable for Hansaj to go
back on her promise to ask for the original £100 because Hansaj demanded this
when he found out about Rohan’s lucrative contract. This could be seen in the case
of Alan v El Nasr which established that detrimental reliance is not a requirement of
promissory estoppel. It only needs to be established that the promisor has changed
their position. Applying the facts Rohan managed to negotiate a lucrative contract to
1
