Promissory Estoppel Flashcards
(3 cards)
Defintion of promissory estoppel
Lord Cairns in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
= when one party leads the other to believe that it will suspend its rights, so the other relies on this, to their detriment, the right cannot be enforced
– in this case PE was held to be suspensory
Development of this doctrine
Developed by Lord Denning in Central London Property Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
The requirements are:
- that A makes a promise to B to not enforce their rights
- B acts on reliance of this promise
- it would otherwise be unequitable for A to revise their rights
= there is no contract to enofoce the promise as there is no extra consideration, but it is a promise that equity will uphold
Shield + caselaw to show it
Combe v Combe = shield not sword, it can only be used as a defence
– e.g. Walton Stores v Maher = Australian case, so persausive, one party wanted to slwo down negotiations as a form of intimidation, M acted on reliance and knocked down their building, no contract yet, but PE was used as M alted their position to their detriment based on this reliance
