Consideration and Promissory Estoppel Notes

There are two instances where unconscionability comes into question by reference to cases bought forward under statute. The first being that under section 20 and the next being under section 21 both from the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). To understand these sections, both equity and the scope of unconscionability need to be examined.

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

A’s promise to B can only be enforced by B if B has given consideration for that promise;

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

A contract is a bargain which two or more parties entered into voluntarily with a lawful object, each of whom intends to create one or more legal responsibility between them in law. Thus, a contract may be formed when two or more parties each promise to perform or to refrain from performing a little action now or in the future. (Boston, T. 1779) What is more, contract law shows what promises or commitments our society believes should be legally binding. Similarly, Professor Arthur Corbin's (1874–1967) famous first axiom of contract law is that the main purpose of law is the realization of reasonable expectations induced by promises. Hence, comments demonstrate that the purpose of contract law is to protect legal promises or commitments between two or more parties which build a

A cancellation can be effected if one party breaches the contract, or a termination can occur when either party lawfully ends the contract for anything other than a breach. In this case, all executor duties are discharged on both sides but in the event of a partial breach, there is still a right to seek a remedy (lectriclaw, 2012). Procedures dealing with all aspects of contracts are a part of everyday transactions and can affect every individual on one level or another.

The following case American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Kennedy & Crawford, 103 Va. 171 (Va.1904) it is expressed that; where the consideration for the promise of one party is the promise of the other party, there must be absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement. Both parties must be bound or neither is bound. A party making a promise is bound to nothing until a promisee, within a reasonable time, engages to do, or else do or begins to do, the thing which is the condition of the first promise. Until such engagement or such doing, the promisor may withdraw his promise, because there is no mutuality, and therefore no consideration for it.

The paper—including tables and graphs, headings, title page, and reference page—is consistent with APA formatting guidelines and meets course-level requirements.

For the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication must be identical to the issue presented later; (2) the party against whom estoppel is asserted must be a party, or in privity with a party, to the prior adjudication; and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted must have had a fair and full opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.

Objective to build legal relationship: Not all agreements end up in binding contracts that are backed by the court of law. This is due to the fact that not all agreements are made under strict or formal

Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties

During the trial, the aggrieved tried to unearth the evident relationship that existed between the producer and the store as well as the benefit that the defendant unjustly received. Since in its arbitration the District Court settled to the notion of intending to ascertain, “What promises” the defendant made either before or at the conclusion of the auditions to the extent the

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.