This case analysis discusses the negotiations between Waltons Stores and Maher for leasing a property, where Waltons required the existing building to be demolished and a new one constructed. After Mayer agreed, they proceeded with the demolishment and construction. However, Waltons decided not to execute the lease, leading to damages for Maher. The key issue was whether Maher could recover the damages. The analysis covers the doctrine of promissory estoppel, unconscionable conduct, and the absence of consideration. The court ruled in favor of Maher, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal and dismissing the appeal.

This document contains a case analysis of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988). The case was decided by the High Court of Australia and dealt with the

Waltons Stores v Maher (1988) - Case Analysis

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) Case Analysis

This article explains the law of estoppel and its application in legal systems. It discusses the concept of promissory estoppel and provides case studies to illustrate its use. The article also highlights the evolution of estoppel doctrine in Australia.

Law of Estoppel: Explained with Case Studies

The given case relates to Walton stores (“Defendant”) and Maher (“Plaintiff”). The key legal argument for the judges was that unconscionable conduct was present on part of Walton Stores since there was significant delay in communicating the decision not to enter into lease contract despite being aware of the actions being undertaken by plaintiff. As a result, damage was suffered by the plaintiff which made promissory estoppel applicable.