TRY ME!
Promissory Estoppel Case Examples
Summary
Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that can enforce non-contractual promises if one party relies on them to their detriment. Key cases include High Trees House, which modified existing obligations, and Waltons Stores, where significant reliance led to estoppel as a cause of action. Crabb v Arun District Council and Amalgamated Investment highlight unconscionability as a driving force. For promissory estoppel to apply, the promise must be clear and unambiguous, as seen in Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd and Baird Textile Holdings. While typically a defense, it can sometimes act as a cause of action under exceptional circumstances. Understanding these principles can help navigate contract law complexities.Full Conversation
what about that it need not move to the promisor, like in hamer v sidway
In Hamer v. Sidway (*), the court recognized that consideration need not move to the promisor but must involve a legal detriment or benefit. The nephew's forbearance from legal rights (e.g., drinking, smoking) was sufficient consideration, even though the benefit did not move to the promisor (uncle). This illustrates that the detriment to the promisee can suffice as consideration.
what else
In addition to "Hamer v. Sidway," the principle that consideration need not move to the promisor is also illustrated in:
- Thomas v Thomas (*): The court held that consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient. The widow's payment of a nominal rent was deemed sufficient consideration even though the benefit did not move to the promisor.
If you need more examples or further explanation, feel free to ask!
- Thomas v Thomas (*): The court held that consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient. The widow's payment of a nominal rent was deemed sufficient consideration even though the benefit did not move to the promisor.
If you need more examples or further explanation, feel free to ask!
what else, more to do with there not being a benefit to the promisor
Case Rating: *
In addition to "Hamer v. Sidway" and "Thomas v Thomas," the principle that consideration need not move to the promisor is also demonstrated in:
- Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd (*): The court held that even trivial acts or nominal consideration (like chocolate wrappers) can be sufficient consideration, even if no direct benefit is received by the promisor.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, let me know!
In addition to "Hamer v. Sidway" and "Thomas v Thomas," the principle that consideration need not move to the promisor is also demonstrated in:
- Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd (*): The court held that even trivial acts or nominal consideration (like chocolate wrappers) can be sufficient consideration, even if no direct benefit is received by the promisor.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, let me know!
how about cases demonstrating the principle that consideration must be legal
Case Rating: *
In contract law, the principle that consideration must be legal is illustrated in several cases:
- Illegal Consideration: A contract involving illegal activities, like selling prohibited substances, is void because the consideration is not legal.
- Jones v. Padavatton (*): Demonstrates that familial promises without legal consideration may not be enforceable.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask!
In contract law, the principle that consideration must be legal is illustrated in several cases:
- Illegal Consideration: A contract involving illegal activities, like selling prohibited substances, is void because the consideration is not legal.
- Jones v. Padavatton (*): Demonstrates that familial promises without legal consideration may not be enforceable.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask!
i mean more that the consideration cannot be illegal, like hiring a contract killer
Case Rating: *
In contract law, the principle that consideration must be legal is fundamental. An agreement involving illegal activities, such as hiring a contract killer, is void and unenforceable because the consideration is illegal. Cases like *Pearce v Brooks (*)* illustrate that contracts with illegal purposes are not legally binding. If you have more specific questions, feel free to ask!
In contract law, the principle that consideration must be legal is fundamental. An agreement involving illegal activities, such as hiring a contract killer, is void and unenforceable because the consideration is illegal. Cases like *Pearce v Brooks (*)* illustrate that contracts with illegal purposes are not legally binding. If you have more specific questions, feel free to ask!
is the principle that contracts with illegal considerations are unenforeable redundant because illegal contracts are voided rather than unenforeable?
Case Rating: *
In contract law, while it might appear redundant to say contracts with illegal considerations are unenforceable since they are void, these terms address slightly different aspects. "Void" means there is no legal effect from the start, while "unenforceable" means it cannot be upheld in court. They underscore the legal system's refusal to acknowledge or enforce such agreements. Do you have any specific aspect of this topic you'd like to explore further?
In contract law, while it might appear redundant to say contracts with illegal considerations are unenforceable since they are void, these terms address slightly different aspects. "Void" means there is no legal effect from the start, while "unenforceable" means it cannot be upheld in court. They underscore the legal system's refusal to acknowledge or enforce such agreements. Do you have any specific aspect of this topic you'd like to explore further?
can these two terms exist at the same time?
Case Rating: *
Yes, the terms "void" and "unenforceable" can coexist in the context of a contract. A contract may be void from the start due to illegality, meaning it has no legal effect, while "unenforceable" indicates that it cannot be upheld or executed in court. This distinction helps clarify the legal consequences of such agreements. If you have further questions or need more examples, feel free to ask!
Yes, the terms "void" and "unenforceable" can coexist in the context of a contract. A contract may be void from the start due to illegality, meaning it has no legal effect, while "unenforceable" indicates that it cannot be upheld or executed in court. This distinction helps clarify the legal consequences of such agreements. If you have further questions or need more examples, feel free to ask!
in modern times, does promissory estoppel prevent the stilk rule from being applied?
Case Rating: *
In modern times, promissory estoppel may provide a way around the Stilk v. Myrick rule, which requires consideration for contract modifications. Promissory estoppel allows enforcement of a promise when one party reasonably relies on it to their detriment, even without traditional consideration. Would you like more details on promissory estoppel?
In modern times, promissory estoppel may provide a way around the Stilk v. Myrick rule, which requires consideration for contract modifications. Promissory estoppel allows enforcement of a promise when one party reasonably relies on it to their detriment, even without traditional consideration. Would you like more details on promissory estoppel?
so is performance of a duty already owed insufficient consideration. The defence of estoppel only exists if the party has acted to their detriment
Case Rating: *
In contract law, performing a duty already owed is usually considered insufficient consideration for a new promise because it doesn't add anything new or additional. However, promissory estoppel can apply if a party relies on a promise to their detriment, even without traditional consideration. Would you like more examples or clarification on estoppel?
In contract law, performing a duty already owed is usually considered insufficient consideration for a new promise because it doesn't add anything new or additional. However, promissory estoppel can apply if a party relies on a promise to their detriment, even without traditional consideration. Would you like more examples or clarification on estoppel?
can you give me an example of the distinction that you just mae
Case Rating: *
In contract law, the distinction between "void" and "unenforceable" contracts can be illustrated as follows:
- Void Contract: An agreement with illegal consideration (e.g., hiring a contract killer) is void, meaning it has no legal effect from the start.
- Unenforceable Contract: Even if a contract was valid at formation, it may become unenforceable in court due to certain legal defenses (like lack of consideration).
These terms clarify different legal consequences in contract disputes. Let me know if you want more examples!
In contract law, the distinction between "void" and "unenforceable" contracts can be illustrated as follows:
- Void Contract: An agreement with illegal consideration (e.g., hiring a contract killer) is void, meaning it has no legal effect from the start.
- Unenforceable Contract: Even if a contract was valid at formation, it may become unenforceable in court due to certain legal defenses (like lack of consideration).
These terms clarify different legal consequences in contract disputes. Let me know if you want more examples!
can you give me an example of this distinction: performing a duty already owed is usually considered insufficient consideration for a new promise because it doesn't add anything new or additional. However, promissory estoppel can apply if a party relies on a promise to their detriment, even without traditional consideration. Would you like more examples or clarification on estoppel?
Case Rating: *
Certainly! Here's an example:
- Insufficient Consideration: A painter promises to finish painting a house, but later asks for more money to complete it. Simply performing the existing duty to paint doesn't add new consideration for the increased payment.
- Promissory Estoppel: If the homeowner promised extra payment for faster completion, and the painter relied on this promise, investing in extra workers to meet the timeline, promissory estoppel might enforce the promise even without new consideration.
Let me know if you need more examples or clarification!
Certainly! Here's an example:
- Insufficient Consideration: A painter promises to finish painting a house, but later asks for more money to complete it. Simply performing the existing duty to paint doesn't add new consideration for the increased payment.
- Promissory Estoppel: If the homeowner promised extra payment for faster completion, and the painter relied on this promise, investing in extra workers to meet the timeline, promissory estoppel might enforce the promise even without new consideration.
Let me know if you need more examples or clarification!
can promissory estoppel apply to non-contractual promises in ireland or england?
Case Rating: *
Promissory estoppel can apply to non-contractual promises in both Ireland and England under certain conditions. It can prevent a party from going back on a promise that wasn't supported by a contract, if the other party relied on it to their detriment.
Would you like more information on how promissory estoppel is applied in specific cases?
Promissory estoppel can apply to non-contractual promises in both Ireland and England under certain conditions. It can prevent a party from going back on a promise that wasn't supported by a contract, if the other party relied on it to their detriment.
Would you like more information on how promissory estoppel is applied in specific cases?
yes
Case Rating: *
Promissory estoppel in Ireland and England serves as a legal doctrine to enforce non-contractual promises if one party reasonably relies on the promise to their detriment. Some key points include:
- Reliance: The promisee must have relied on the promise.
- Detriment: The reliance must result in a detriment.
- Inequitable to go back: It must be unjust to allow the promisor to retract the promise.
Would you like more examples or cases illustrating this principle?
Promissory estoppel in Ireland and England serves as a legal doctrine to enforce non-contractual promises if one party reasonably relies on the promise to their detriment. Some key points include:
- Reliance: The promisee must have relied on the promise.
- Detriment: The reliance must result in a detriment.
- Inequitable to go back: It must be unjust to allow the promisor to retract the promise.
Would you like more examples or cases illustrating this principle?
give me an english/irish case where estoppel was used where therre were no pre-existing legal relations
Case Rating: *
An example where estoppel was used in the absence of pre-existing legal relations is High Trees House Ltd v. Central London Property Trust Ltd (*). In this case, the court upheld a promise based on promissory estoppel, despite the lack of a formal contract, as the promisee relied on it to their detriment during wartime.
An example where estoppel was used in the absence of pre-existing legal relations is High Trees House Ltd v. Central London Property Trust Ltd (*). In this case, the court upheld a promise based on promissory estoppel, despite the lack of a formal contract, as the promisee relied on it to their detriment during wartime.
but there was a pre-existing legal relation as the property was being leased, before the promise occured?
Case Rating: *
You're correct that in *High Trees House Ltd v. Central London Property Trust Ltd*, there was indeed a pre-existing legal relationship as the property was leased. Promissory estoppel was applied to modify the terms of the lease during wartime, due to reliance on a promise, but the lease itself constituted a pre-existing legal relation.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
You're correct that in *High Trees House Ltd v. Central London Property Trust Ltd*, there was indeed a pre-existing legal relationship as the property was leased. Promissory estoppel was applied to modify the terms of the lease during wartime, due to reliance on a promise, but the lease itself constituted a pre-existing legal relation.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
give me other cases where promissory estoppel was used as a defence in irish and english jurisdictions where there weere no pre-existing legal relations?
Case Rating: *
Promissory estoppel cases without pre-existing legal relations are rare, but here are a couple of examples:
- Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (*) (Australian case but influential): Maher relied on a promise from Waltons to his detriment, even without a formal contract.
- Combe v Combe (*): The court held that promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action where none exists, emphasizing reliance and detriment.
If you need more information, let me know!
Promissory estoppel cases without pre-existing legal relations are rare, but here are a couple of examples:
- Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (*) (Australian case but influential): Maher relied on a promise from Waltons to his detriment, even without a formal contract.
- Combe v Combe (*): The court held that promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action where none exists, emphasizing reliance and detriment.
If you need more information, let me know!
in your first case, it was used as a cause of action, in the second case, there was no reference to a lack of pre-existing legal relations
Case Rating: *
Promissory estoppel typically acts as a defense, not a cause of action. In *Waltons Stores v Maher*, it was indeed used as a cause of action under exceptional circumstances because Maher had significantly relied on the promise. In *Combe v Combe*, the key was that the husband had no legal obligation, highlighting no pre-existing relations. Would you like more case examples or further clarification on the principles involved?
Promissory estoppel typically acts as a defense, not a cause of action. In *Waltons Stores v Maher*, it was indeed used as a cause of action under exceptional circumstances because Maher had significantly relied on the promise. In *Combe v Combe*, the key was that the husband had no legal obligation, highlighting no pre-existing relations. Would you like more case examples or further clarification on the principles involved?
in combe v combe, there was no estoppel used as a defence while there were no pre-existing legal relations. it was just a failed attempt at using promissory estoppel as a cause of action
Case Rating: *
*Combe v Combe* is a classic example where promissory estoppel was unsuccessfully used to create a cause of action. The court emphasized that promissory estoppel cannot establish a new legal obligation but can prevent unjust conduct where existing legal relations are modified. If you need more examples or details, feel free to ask!
*Combe v Combe* is a classic example where promissory estoppel was unsuccessfully used to create a cause of action. The court emphasized that promissory estoppel cannot establish a new legal obligation but can prevent unjust conduct where existing legal relations are modified. If you need more examples or details, feel free to ask!
can you give me a case that clarifies that im order for promissory estoppel to be usable as a defence, the promise which was relied upon must be clear and unambiguous
Case Rating: *
A case that illustrates the need for a clear and unambiguous promise for promissory estoppel is *Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd (*)*. In this case, the court emphasized that for promissory estoppel to apply, the promise must be clear and unambiguous. If you need more details or examples, let me know!
A case that illustrates the need for a clear and unambiguous promise for promissory estoppel is *Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd (*)*. In this case, the court emphasized that for promissory estoppel to apply, the promise must be clear and unambiguous. If you need more details or examples, let me know!
any other cases?
Case Rating: *
Another case that highlights the necessity for a clear and unambiguous promise in promissory estoppel is *Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc (*)*. The court ruled that promissory estoppel could not be applied as there was no clear and unequivocal promise made. If you have further questions, feel free to ask!
Another case that highlights the necessity for a clear and unambiguous promise in promissory estoppel is *Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc (*)*. The court ruled that promissory estoppel could not be applied as there was no clear and unequivocal promise made. If you have further questions, feel free to ask!
compile a list of cases related to the principles of promissory estoppel
Case Rating: *
Here's a list of cases related to the principles of promissory estoppel:
*. Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd (*): Key case illustrating the application of promissory estoppel in modifying existing legal obligations.
*. Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (*): Australian case where promissory estoppel was used as a cause of action due to significant reliance.
*. Combe v Combe (*): Demonstrates that promissory estoppel cannot create a new cause of action without pre-existing legal relations.
*. Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd (*): Emphasizes the need for a clear and unambiguous promise.
*. Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc (*): Highlights the necessity for a clear and unequivocal promise for promissory estoppel.
If you need more examples or details, feel free to ask!
Here's a list of cases related to the principles of promissory estoppel:
*. Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd (*): Key case illustrating the application of promissory estoppel in modifying existing legal obligations.
*. Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (*): Australian case where promissory estoppel was used as a cause of action due to significant reliance.
*. Combe v Combe (*): Demonstrates that promissory estoppel cannot create a new cause of action without pre-existing legal relations.
*. Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd (*): Emphasizes the need for a clear and unambiguous promise.
*. Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc (*): Highlights the necessity for a clear and unequivocal promise for promissory estoppel.
If you need more examples or details, feel free to ask!
how about a case that demonstrates that unconscionability is the driving force behind promissory estoppel
Case Rating: *
A case that demonstrates unconscionability as a driving force behind promissory estoppel is *Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (*)*. In this case, the Australian High Court applied promissory estoppel due to the unconscionable conduct of Waltons, who allowed Maher to proceed with work based on an unfulfilled promise. Although it's an Australian case, it significantly impacted common law jurisdictions. If you need more examples or further clarification, let me know!
A case that demonstrates unconscionability as a driving force behind promissory estoppel is *Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (*)*. In this case, the Australian High Court applied promissory estoppel due to the unconscionable conduct of Waltons, who allowed Maher to proceed with work based on an unfulfilled promise. Although it's an Australian case, it significantly impacted common law jurisdictions. If you need more examples or further clarification, let me know!
what else
Case Rating: *
Another example highlighting unconscionability in promissory estoppel is the case of *Crabb v Arun District Council (*)*. In this case, the court applied promissory estoppel because it was considered unconscionable for the council to deny access after Crabb relied on their promise and acted to his detriment. If you have more questions or need further details, just let me know!
Another example highlighting unconscionability in promissory estoppel is the case of *Crabb v Arun District Council (*)*. In this case, the court applied promissory estoppel because it was considered unconscionable for the council to deny access after Crabb relied on their promise and acted to his detriment. If you have more questions or need further details, just let me know!
what else
Case Rating: *
In the context of promissory estoppel and unconscionability, another relevant case is *Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd (*)*. This case demonstrates the importance of fairness and justice in applying promissory estoppel, where it would be unconscionable to allow a party to go back on a promise relied upon by the other party.
If you have more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!
In the context of promissory estoppel and unconscionability, another relevant case is *Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd (*)*. This case demonstrates the importance of fairness and justice in applying promissory estoppel, where it would be unconscionable to allow a party to go back on a promise relied upon by the other party.
If you have more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!
give me a list where the judgements refer explicitly to the unconscionability of allowing the promisor revert his promise
Case Rating: *
Here's a list of cases where judgments explicitly refer to the unconscionability of allowing the promisor to revert their promise:
*. Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (*) - Australian High Court emphasized unconscionability in promissory estoppel.
*. Crabb v Arun District Council (*) - Court applied estoppel due to unconscionable conduct by the council.
*. Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd (*) - Highlighted fairness and justice in promissory estoppel.
If you have more questions or need further details, just let me know!
Here's a list of cases where judgments explicitly refer to the unconscionability of allowing the promisor to revert their promise:
*. Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (*) - Australian High Court emphasized unconscionability in promissory estoppel.
*. Crabb v Arun District Council (*) - Court applied estoppel due to unconscionable conduct by the council.
*. Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd (*) - Highlighted fairness and justice in promissory estoppel.
If you have more questions or need further details, just let me know!
in what way are the principled of privity of a contract and conideration movin from the promisee linked?
Case Rating: *
The principles of privity of contract and consideration moving from the promisee are linked in the way that both govern the enforceability of contractual rights and obligations. Here's how they connect:
- Privity of Contract: Only parties to a contract can sue or be sued on it, meaning third parties usually have no rights or obligations under the contract.
- Consideration from the Promisee: For a promise to be enforceable, the promisee must provide consideration, which is something of value, even if it doesn't move to the promisor. It reinforces the contractual nexus, ensuring that only parties who contribute consideration are bound by the contract.
Would you like more examples or further clarification on these principles?
The principles of privity of contract and consideration moving from the promisee are linked in the way that both govern the enforceability of contractual rights and obligations. Here's how they connect:
- Privity of Contract: Only parties to a contract can sue or be sued on it, meaning third parties usually have no rights or obligations under the contract.
- Consideration from the Promisee: For a promise to be enforceable, the promisee must provide consideration, which is something of value, even if it doesn't move to the promisor. It reinforces the contractual nexus, ensuring that only parties who contribute consideration are bound by the contract.
Would you like more examples or further clarification on these principles?
Start a new chat