Applications of Elements of Promissory Estoppel | Business Law Assignment

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
APPLICATION OF ELEMENTS OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
1. A promise is made
As per the given scenario, Jonathan James works on behalf of Subway, the fastest-
growing restaurant franchise as an agent. Jonathan said both Liz and Tom Jones that a store
location has been chosen by Subway in Half Moon Bay which they need to purchase and after
that Subway supplies them food as per demand so that Liz and Tom Jones could operate the
Subway franchise. However, a condition has been given to Liz and Tom Jones by Jonathan
James that they need to invest a sum of $ 150,000 to operate the franchise which has been
accepted by them and in this way, an implied promise has also been made by Jonathan.
In Brinkom Investments Ltd vs. Carr [1979] CA case the court apprehended that promissory
estoppel often arises out of a promise made by the parties.
Therefore, by applying the rule of Brinkom Investments Ltd vs. Carr [1979] CA case in
this given scenario it can be said that a promise has been made.
2. The promisor reasonably expects the promise to induce action by the
promisee
After listening to the condition from Jonathan, both Liz and Tom agree with the term
because they have considered this as a very good opportunity. Moreover, the promise made by
Jonathan also ensures that if they can arrange the money they would get the opportunity to
operate the franchise. Their body language also assures Jonathan they perform the duty. In Ajayi
vs. Briscoe [1964] 1 WLR 1326 case the court was of the view that the promisee needs to act
based on the promise made by the promisor. The court also stated that promissory estoppel
sometimes arises when the promisee relies on the promise made by the promisor and acts
accordingly.
Therefore, by applying the rule of Ajayi vs. Briscoe [1964] 1 WLR 1326 case in this
given scenario it can be said that the promisor reasonably expects the promise to induce action
by the promisee.
3. The promisee does act
Relying on the statements given by Jonathan, they also have sold their personal property
and other business of a dive bar along with the building. They used the money for purchasing the
building in Half Moon Bay to operate the franchise.
Thus, it has been said that both the promisee have performed their acts.
4. Justice requires enforcement of the promise
Jonathan and Subway canceled the agreement with Liz and Tom because they cannot
arrange the additional sum of $ 150,000. The fourth element of the promissory estoppel is that it
cannot be implemented against the promisor. Therefore, promissory estoppel can be used as a
defense, not as a sword. In Combe vs. Combe [1951] CA case it has been held by the court that
promissory estoppel does not provide a cause for action and the contract forming condition as
such remains valid. It is a rule of evidence that prohibits the promisor from questioning the
validity of the contract.

2BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Thus, by applying the rule of Combe vs. Combe [1951] CA case, it can be said that
justice requires the enforcement of the promise to provide damages to Liz and Tom for the loss
suffered by them.
Bibliography
Alden, E., 2017. Promissory Estoppel and the Origins of Contract Law. NEULJ, 9, p.1.
Baird, D.G., 2019. Unlikely Resurrection: Richard Posner, Promissory Estoppel, and The Death
of Contract. U. Chi. L. Rev., 86, p.1037.
Gan, O., 2015. The Justice Element of Promissory Estoppel. . John's L. Rev., 89, p.55.
Perry, C., 2016. Good Faith in English and US Contract Law: Divergent Theories, Practical
Similarities. Bus. L. Int'l, 17, p.27.