TMA 01 Contract law and Tort Law
7 Pages2246 Words254 Views
Contract law and tort law (TMA 01)
Added on 2020-04-15
TMA 01 Contract law and Tort Law
Contract law and tort law (TMA 01)
Added on 2020-04-15
ShareRelated Documents
Question 1The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents (estops) a claimant from going back on apromise and has been described as a ‘shield and not a sword’. Undertake an evaluation of this statement using related case law.Promissory estoppel can be described as one of the popular types of equitable estoppel. Thesignificance of equitable estoppel has been stressed upon by the court in Crabb v Arun DC(1976). While emphasizing on the importance of equitable estoppel, the court stated that equitycomes in to mitigate the rigors of the application of strict law. It also prevents the person frominsisting on the strict application of his or her legal rights when under the circumstances, it willbe in equitable for such person to do so, keeping in view the dealings that have taken placeamong the parties. The doctrine of promissory estoppel can be explained with the help of thefollowing example. Therefore, when A has made a promise to B according to which A is notgoing to enforce his legal right and B has relied and acted upon such promise without supplyingany consideration, equity will not allow A to back up from such a promise later on (Hughes vMetropolitan Rly Co (1877). A significant case related with promissory estoppel is that of Central London Property Trust Ltd.v High Trees House Ltd. (1974). In the same way, the court has also explained the doctrine ofpromissory estoppel in Total Metal Manufacturing Ltd V. Tungsten Electric Co Ltd. (1955). Theprinciple of promissory estoppel is different from estoppel under the common law due to thereason that in this case, there are less strict requirements present. Therefore promised the
estoppel may arise on the basis of the promise regarding future intention or conduct. Theapplication of the doctrine of promissory estoppel can also be seen in the case of Hughes V.Metropolitan Railway (1877). In this case, the tenant was given the time of six months by thelandlord to repair the property, otherwise there was risk of forfeiture. During the six months,negotiations started between the landlord and the payment for the sale of the lease. Howeverafter six months, the negotiations between the parties failed at at the same time the team and alsofailed to repair the property. Under these circumstances, the landlord initiated action to enforceforfeiture. However, the decision given by the court was that on account of the conduct of thelandlord, the tenant was led to believe that the forfeiture was not going to be enforced by thelandlord. The brief facts of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd. (1947) are that ablock of flats was led by the plaintiff to the defendant on a lease for 99 years at the rate of £2 500per year. As a result of the evacuation of people from London during the World War, thedefendant could not sublet enough lives so that the rent could be covered. Under thesecircumstances, the plaintiff agreed that only half of the rent will be charged. However, at the endof the war, the property market stabilized. As a result, the defendant, succeeded in subletting allthe flats. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff asked that original rent should be paid by thedefendant, however the defendant refused to pay the original rent.Under these circumstances, the issue in this case was if the promise made by the landlord can beenforced even if there was no consideration present to support the promise.In this case the court stated that the statement made by the landlord was the representationregarding the future. It was a promise to suspend the right of the plaintiff to claim for rent duringthe war. The plaintiff was aware that the promise would be acted upon and the defendant had
indeed acted on the promise (D & C Builders v Rees, 1965). It was enforceable, even if therewas no consideration but only during the time when the conditions leading to the promise werepresent (lack of demand for accommodation during the war). As these conditions seized to existin 1945, the court stated that from this point, the plaintiff was allowed to claim the original rent.The decision given in this case reveals some of the major elements of promissory estoppel.Therefore it can be stated that the doctrine of promissory estoppel requires that there should be apromise to waive strict legal rights, such promise, should be made intention of creating legalrelations and it should be intended to be acted upon by the other party. It is also necessitate thatthere should be an act done by relying on the promise, although it is not necessary that thereshould be detrimental reliance on the promise. Another important element that needs to be noted in this regard that promissory estoppel onlyoperates as a shield and it cannot act as a sword. Hence, the promise was not result in creating acause of action, but the courts will prevent the party making the promise from actinginconsistently with the promise. In this case, it was stated by Denning J that it can be said that inany case, estoppel would cease to operate when the condition due to which the representationapplied had come to an end or it can also be stated that it would only come to end on notice.However in either case, it is merely a way of ascertaining the scope of the representation.Therefore, Denning J. has discussed the position that if an attempt would have been made by theplaintiff to claim the full rent for the wartime period, according to him the claim would havefailed. Promissory estoppel takes place when a contractual relationship is present between the parties.However, it is not yet settled if promissory estoppel can also be present in case of pre-contractualrelationships. But in this regard, in Brinkom Investments Ltd V. Carr (1979), Lord Denning had
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Misrepresentation in Contract Lawlg...
|11
|2799
|65
Contract Law: Promissory Estoppel and Intention to Create Legal Relationslg...
|10
|2510
|258
Business Law Crown Melbourne Limitedlg...
|6
|1380
|110
Commercial Law vs Corporate Law - Assignmentlg...
|9
|1660
|42
Misrepresentation in Contract Lawlg...
|9
|2569
|1
Business Law Assignment Sample PDFlg...
|6
|1360
|163