Commercial and Corporation Law - Assignment

Running head: COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Commercial and Corporation law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Table of Contents
Answer 2..........................................................................................................................................2
Issue.............................................................................................................................................2
Relevant legal rules......................................................................................................................2
Application..................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................6
Answer 3..........................................................................................................................................6
Issues............................................................................................................................................6
Relevant legal rules......................................................................................................................6
Application..................................................................................................................................8
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................9
References......................................................................................................................................11

2COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Answer 2
Issue
i. whether the failure of Gareth to fulfill his promise to provide cars will entitle Peninsula
Tours to make a legitimate claim of $1200
ii. Can Gareth seek any remedy against Peninsula Tours if it accepts three cars after he had
incurred expenses for its repair and recruiting drivers?
Relevant legal rules
Exemption of Promissory Estoppel
The concept of promissory estoppel is defined as an equitable doctrine that prevents a
person from refuting a promise that the person had made earlier. This concept had been further
reaffirmed by the court in the landmark case of Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten [1955] 1
WLR 761. In order to make successful claims under the concept of promissory estoppel, certain
requirements must be satisfied. Firstly, the promise made by the person must be clear and
unambiguous. Secondly, there must be an existence of contractual obligation, which has been
subjected to modifications. Thirdly, there have been certain circumstantial changes with respect
to both the parties (Barnett and Oman 2016). Lastly, the court must be satisfied that denial of the
promise shall be inequitable. In the Tool Metal case, the court held that it is crucial to establish
such elements to succeed in the claims.
However, there are circumstances under which the court may reject the claims made
under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In Conbe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215, a husband
failed to fulfill a promise that he made to his wife. The promise was related to certain payment

3COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
whih was to be made to her but he failed to execute the promise. The wife initiated legal
proceedings against him stating that doctrine of promissory estoppels shall be applicable in this
situation as failing to make such payment; her husband cannot deny that he had promised to
fulfill such promise. Nevertheless, the court rejected the claim stating that the concept of
‘promissory estoppel’ doctrine shall not be granted under such circumstances, as this legal
principle can be used as ‘sword and not as a shield’ In other words, the court explained that this
legal principle can be used as a defense but not as a ground to make any claim. Furthermore, the
other ground for which the court did not grant the claim was that it did not include any
modification in the contractual promise that existed between the parties (Fried 2015). This case
is significant as it recognizes the importance of all the elements that must be established to make
a successful claim.
The other requirement, which states that the doctrine shall only be applicable if it
amounts to ‘inequitable’ between the parties. This requirement has been further established in the
case of D&C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 WLR 28. It was established that in case of either parties
take an undue advantage of the position of the other party, the doctrine cannot be applicable
when its application shall result in inequitable.
The significance of the doctrine was further explained in the landmark case of
Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd v Nigerian Product Marketing Co Ltd [1972] AC 74. In this
case, a contract was required to be paid by means of pound and sterling. The seller mistakenly
sent an inaccurate invoice, which included payment in the form of Kenyan shillings and showed
equal value of both the currency. The buyer did not make any objection and accepted the
inaccurate invoice as well the delivery accordingly. Later, with a fall in the value of the pound,
the buyer claimed that payment be made by means of sterling as it was mentioned within the