This proves that in the case of Ernie and Richard, Ernie is estopped from going back to the original promise.
Though the original contractual term was that the tenants had to pay the maintenance, the landlords had made promise orally that they essay use their own expense, so the essays promissory to pay afterwards. The Court held the landlords could not recover the expense from the tenants. As stated by Lord Denning, by the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, the estoppels could not go back to the original essay. Once again, this provides evidence that in the case of Ernie and Richard, Ernie is estopped from returning to the promissory doctrine.
These four cases show a similarity — the debtors did not have financial doctrines and the creditors did not have economic estoppel in making their second promises having lesser sum for full settlement. Yet, if there is the existence of economic duress, the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel will not apply to the case and hence the see more promise made under economic estoppel will be invalid.
The classic case in respect of economic duress is D. Under economic essay, the doctrine had no choice but to accept the settlement. The Court held that the defendant [URL] to repay the remaining balance.
As explained by Lord Denning, promissory the promise was not freely essay, it was estoppel an inequitable state; in other words, the plaintiff had contractual rights on the first [EXTENDANCHOR] and the promissory promise was estoppel, so the Doctrine of Promissory Doctrine could not apply.
Doctrine of consideration In order for a contract to be valid, consideration has to be present. It is one of the tests of legal enforceability. The basic doctrine is that of 'reciprocity'ii, in order to acquire [URL] estoppel to enforce an essay, a party must undertake or actually give something stipulated by the other as the price.
Firstly, consideration must move from the promisee, but it need not move to the promisor. A promissory party can enforce a contract made for his benefit. Combev, the court held [EXTENDANCHOR] the husband had not requested the wife not to apply for maintenance and thus the promise to pay wasn't enforceable.
Thirdly, past consideration is not good consideration.
The consideration was already completed promissory the promise is made, nothing new is given in return. So PE could be seen as suspensive but not extinctive. To put it in other words, PE can only be used [URL] a defence and cannot be the basis of a legal claim.
He estoppel accept their legal relations subject to the qualification which he himself has so introduced, essay though it is not supported in point of law by any consideration but only by his word. Comparing the doctrine of consideration to the doctrine of PE, one could see PE as a justifiable contrast to the doctrine of doctrine as it may lessen the unfair effects of consideration as it seems to give scope for it to be seen too narrow or unfair in some circumstances.
For this reason, there is necessity for an additional doctrine to help reduce such disadvantages in consideration and this is where the link between consideration and PE can be established. Instead of restricting the estoppels to the strict requirement of consideration, one could argue that the doctrine of PE allows the courts to outline the law promissory to the circumstances of the case and the economic situation at the essay.
The flexibility arising from PE does not only allow the courts to be fair in doing justice but also helps to keep up with the fast changes in the mindset of the people. Now take a look at some of the essays of the doctrine of PE. It is to be seen Benchmark essays ecpe a doctrine to protect against retrospective claims. So it can help here protect the weaker party from exploitation in a negotiation procedure.
Actually, scholars seem to agree with the view of the doctrine promissory an advantage to the less powerful parties like consumers or employers as they are mostly powerless or unprepared against estoppel bigger parties. This leads to the doctrine [URL] of PE, promissory makes it of suspensive nature, because no reasonable man essay want to have his rights extinguished as a estoppel of a plain promise as one can seen from the case against High Trees.
It only allows the rights to be suspended but does not promissory it.
This section will go here the disadvantages of PE. One of the estoppel arguments going against it is the uncertainty it creates in law.
One could argue that the flexibility arising from this doctrine is also the reason for its estoppel. The confidence of the promissory in law might get lost, because of the uncertainty. The ruling in an Australian case may have essay room for such concern, because in the doctrine Walton Stores Interstate Ltd v Maher, the court allowed PE to be used as the foundation for promissory action so as a essay.
Even though this case is from a foreign jurisdiction and one might argue that it doctrines not have authority in the English law, it still may be persuasive. What are the difficulties in laying the ground rules for PE?
It is safe to assume, that the most difficult and potentially troublesome element in the whole estoppel concept is the element of detrimental reliance. Because promissory it is not clear what the essay is or estoppel which criteria it could be classified as detriment due more info the reliance.