Promissory estoppel suspensory

Is a promissory estoppel binding? Does promissory estoppel arise in pre contractual relationships? However, for periodic payment promissory estoppel merely suspends the right of the promissor to the debt until such time when it becomes equitable to claim the remainder. Effect of promissory estoppel is generally suspensory. It does not extinguish the promisor ’s rights.

In Hughes case landlord’s right to enforce the repairing covenant was not extinguished but suspended and could be resurrected by his reasonable notice. In some instances, it can stop a person going back on a promise, which is not supported by consideration. The effect of promissory estoppel is usually suspensory only, but, if the effect of resiling is sufficiently inequitable, a debtor may be able to show that the right to recover the debt is not merely postponed but extinguished: see the High Trees case and the Tool Metal case with respect to the wartime payments.

It is said that promissory estoppel has merely a suspensory effect on a payment obligation. In the context of periodic payments this makes sense. The payer pays less or nothing at all for a period of time or while a set of circumstances exist and when this time or those circumstances end the obligation to pay in full is reinstated.

Extinctive or suspensory. High Trees) is extinctive however for future obligations suspensory. Promissory Estoppel is the exception to the rule requiring consideration. This allows, in certain circumstances, promises to accept a modified performance of a contract to be binding, even in the absence of consideration.

The final is that promissory estoppel is merely suspensory , and that the promisor can resume his rights under the contract after giving reasonable notice of his intention to do so: Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co. The doctrine of promissory estoppel may be poised to act as an alternative to consideration.

Where promissory estoppel is raised as a defence or counter-claim against a creditor seeking full payment after a purported agreement to remit the balance of a debt in exchange for part-payment. This is not to say the two cannot co-exist. An answer is seeked through case law which in this case is Tool. A ’s right only if subsequent events render it impossible for the.

In summary, promissory estoppel may be raised as a defence to an action to enforce a strict legal right which has been waived. There must be a promise to waive the legal right. The first requirement of promissory estoppel is that the promisor must give clear and unambiguous statement that he does not intend to enforce his legal rights. The promise may be express or implied. B may be temporary and terminated by A? B can resume his original position.

This can be criticised for being illogical, unprinciple and unnecessary. In Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co, the landlord’s right to enforce the covenant to repair was only suspended during the purchase negotiation. As to the argument that an estoppel had been create the effect of promissory estoppel is usually suspensory only, but, if the effect of resiling is sufficiently inequitable, a debtor may be able to show that the right to recover the debt is not merely postponed but extinguished. In English law, a promise made without consideration is generally not enforceable, and is known as a gratuitous promise. The most common view in cases and commentary is that promissory estoppel is merely suspensory.

After all, the landlord in Hughes was allowed to reactivate the six months’ repair period by giving the tenant the appropriate notice. It is the equitable exception to the rule that part payment of debt requires new consideration. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Landlord tried to forfeit lease of tenant who didn't undertake repairs to property, whilst in negotiations with landlord. What is promissory estoppel ?