Promissory estoppel problem question

Each of the questions will have a specific legal issue it focuses on. Problem questions which involve consideration and promissory estoppel will usually be limited only to those principles, however, be aware that sometimes these will be paired with issues of offer, acceptance and intention to create legal relations. Do you know the necessary requirements to raise promissory estoppel and why it might be refused? Test your knowledge and take the quiz on promissory estoppel.

If you need assistance you can refer to the lecture outline on promissory estoppel. The case opened the question of the degree in which the testator had asserted something which was contrary to what was implied in a previous statement ( estoppel ). The question remained to what was the minimum equity necessary to give justice to the claimant and to avoid an unconscionable result. Both cases were factually problematic (at least on HHJ Matthews’ reading of the facts) for claims in proprietary estoppel , but that didn’t stop.

What is the difference between the two cases? So if Dan were to sue Amelia for the £00 the main question would be whether this was just a non-contractual promise or whether there was an intention to create legal relations. Taking a look at options available to an injured party, this quiz and corresponding worksheet will help you gauge your knowledge of the features of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Provide An Example To Illustrate. This problem has been solved!

It is next necessary to consider whether promissory estoppel would apply to prevent F from relying on her rights in the original contract. G did rely on the modified agreement because he paid the £0upfront and the first monthly instalment. However, G’s reliance must be detrimental in order for promissory estoppel to apply. Its on the doctrine of consideration and promissory estoppel and would really appreciate it if anyone could help me out :) Peter, a computer technician, who is soon to be marrie entered into a contract with Events Lt a wedding planning company to deal with certain necessary arrangements for his wedding.

The idea of promissory estoppel is that the promisor is barred from arguing that the underlying promise at the heart of the case should not be legally upheld. In essence, when someone makes a commitment to someone who goes on to rely on that promise, only to experience some sort of detriment, promissory. Promissory Estoppel Further Explained.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an alternative to the doctrine of consideration. In most cases, one party was harmed or served injustice because of the broken promise that they relied on. Under English law, proprietary and promissory estoppels have quite different elements and remedies. The principle of estoppel however may allow a promise to be enforced even though these requirements are not satisfied. The development of the concept of “ promissory estoppel ” in contract law has led to the proposition that a court may decide that a “contract” has come into being even though the traditional rules for contract formation have not been satisfied.

Proprietary estoppel is a means of creating a proprietary interest in land in the absence of following the correct formalities. Question of Testament: Proprietary Estoppel claims. You may have studied the topic of equitable remedies in contract law so, hopefully, this chapter should act as something of a reminder to you about these principles. The Supreme Court has refused to make any distinction between a private individual and public body so far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned.

But if the promise is on behalf of the Government is unconstitutional, against any statute or against public policy the question of promissory estoppel against Government does not apply. THE PROBLEM PROMISSORY NOTE: A QUESTION OF ESTOPPEL. Search for more papers by.

In fact, when promissory estoppel is use it is because a contract did not exist. Now, it may not be as simple as this. The court will look at a few things. First, the court will decide whether.

A voluntarily accepted the agreement to accept a part payment, and it could be suggested that B did not take advantage of her financial circumstances as she never disputed that she did in fact owe money to A. It is because there is no proof that Garland has been prevented from rescinding the legal relationship, which is a prerequisite for a promissory estoppel case. I have been given a mooting problem , which is given at thE en dof this post.