Promissory Estoppel Essay

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

Contract law is relatively consistent regarding whether a contract was actually made and whether the parties involved can be legally held to the contract or not. This is primarily due to the fact that contract law proceeds from law handed down from centuries of civil and common law cases. Basically, two parties have to agree to the terms of the cited contract, after the offer is made and accepted (both parties have had time to review and make changes to the contract, although this process does not always occur), and they have either orally agreed or signed some form of written contract. It can be argued in a court afterword that there was not sufficient consideration or that one party coerced the other into an agreement, but these are usually handled at the signing of the contract. This process is time honored and, as said, has been in place for a long time. But, new types of contracts occur at times and they have a different sort of accounting by the courts. One of these types of contracts is that generally called prenuptial, antenuptial or premarital (Standler, 2009). This paper looks at prenuptial agreements and using the case of Simeone v. Simeone tries to determine some of the pros and cons of treating these agreements more like regular contracts.

The "something of value" may be either something that the person actually hands over (that they would not otherwise be obligated to hand over) or some right that they give up (that they would otherwise have been entitled to exercise). For example, if you agree to buy a car for cash, you agree to deliver cash to the seller, and the seller agrees to deliver the car to you. In that situation, there is legal consideration, or sufficient value, for the agreement to be enforceable. Another example is a mutual release of claims. Suppose you accidentally hit a parked car, and you agree to pay the owner of the car £500 in cash to settle. In that case, you agree to deliver cash to the owner of the car, and the owner agrees that he or she will not file a lawsuit against you. (In such a situation, always get a written release of liability, or "release," from the owner of the car to prove that you have settled up.) The consideration from your side is the cash, and the consideration from the owner's side is that he or she gave up the right to sue you for the damages. Although the owner didn't give up anything physical, there is consideration to support the agreement because the owner gave up a legal right. Source: (http://onlinelegalforms.com/legalforms/freedraftingtips.html#consideration) Dunlop v Selfridges (1915) Hol. Defined consideration as ‘An act or forbearance of one party or, the promise thereof, is the price

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

Charles Fried asserts that enforcing promises is the main purpose of contract law. One initiates a contract by invoking the practice of promising, and the other party can reasonably trust him or she will perform as promised in the future. If one fails to fulfill the promises, he or she then damages or ruins the trust, and exhibits disrespect for the other party. This behavior is morally wrong and condemned by the society. To enforce promises, the social practice of promising should be supplemented with additional rules or standards. The role of contract law is to provide rules and standards to further that purposes. When the promise principle under Fried’s theory does not provide a ground for relief, other contract law principles may still fill the gap. For example, the principle of benefit requires compensating others for non-gift benefits received from them. Additionally, contract law also enforces promise by awarding expectation

by using the doctrine of promissory estoppel there is a higher level of enforcement than is possible so that the courts have limited the application of the decision of Court of Appeal in the case of Williams V Roffey Bros. in this case the approach to the identification of consideration have left randered the doctrine of promissory estoppel mainly redundant in this context.

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

The given scenario pertaining to, the existence and legal obligations of a contract between Margaret and Emily, raises question upon certain aspects of contract law. Those being, intention, consideration, contractual capacity and equity. Bellow will be a detailed analysis on the issues raised, legal reasoning and interpretation of the issues as to advise Emily on how to resolve this domestic dispute.

The issues arise in Andrew’s case are related to concepts of offer and acceptance and promissory estoppel. If a strict adherence to the rules on offer and acceptance is adopted, it is necessary to determine when the contract was formed.

In order to determine whether or not Emily could enforce the promise on the basis of promissory estoppel, the six-point test established by Walton v Maher[9] must be satisfied. Firstly, the promisee assumes the existence of a particular legal relationship. Secondly, the promisor is

Contracts are greatly used in today’s business world as a legal agreement. The modern law of contract is mainly a product of the industrial revolution and the social regulation of the 20th century. However, the foundations of all European contract law goes back to obligations in Ancient Greek and Roman law, while the official advancement of English law began after the Norman Conquest of 1066. The principle of contract has been so comprehensively transformed to meet the needs of modern times, the simple everyday use of its form is no longer the basis of any rights in private law. These contracts are regulated so much that the contracts do not have a place for personal matters. One of these, the promissory oath, is only being used as a part of ceremony such as entering upon a public office.

This essay will critically evaluate the statement in segments whilst explaining their available remedies, sanctions and objects within the context of contract law, tort law and criminal law. The validity of the entire statement will further be considered using the evidences established prior reaching a conclusion.

The area of law covered in this case includes the intention to create legal relationship and implied contract between two parties. The issue of estoppel relating to conventional basis for both parties was also included.

In this essay, I will discuss that in contract law, bilateral contracts epitomizes the notion of promises for promises as the grounds for contractual obligations. I will examine how damages are recovered in reliance interest when a party fails to uphold their contractual obligations to another party. Finally, I will discuss why I agree that damages should reflect the promises made between two

This project bears on imprint of many peoples. I sincerely thank to Sir Puranjoy Ghosh and Ma 'am Jinia Kundu, faculty members of KIIT School of Law, KIIT University for providing me an opportunity to do my project work on “ENFORCEABILITY OF CONTRACTS AND BENEFITS OF THIRD PARTY”. Also, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity, express a sense of gratitude and love to my friends and my beloved parents for their manual support, strength, help and for everything .