The doctrine of consideration is one of the most provocative issues under common law that has come under intensifying criticism because of the constriction of its definition. The definition of consideration has a very narrow scope of view; However Consideration continues to clarify out non-contractual promises. The other question which this essay will address is whether the abolishment of consideration would be a wrong move. And if it were to be abolished would other doctrines such as intention to
go to some lengths to invent consideration like equity will, and in other cases, uphold promises that are not supported by consideration through the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Like every policy, consideration has rules that must be followed, some of which that consideration must be sufficient but not necessarily suitable, and so on. ‘Estoppel…is a principle of justice and of equity. It comes to this: when a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs
The doctrine of consideration is one of the most provocative issues under common law that has come under intensifying criticism because of the constriction of its definition. The definition of consideration has a very narrow scope of view; However Consideration continues to clarify out non-contractual promises. The other question which this essay will address is whether the abolishment of consideration would be a wrong move. And if it were to be abolished would other doctrines such as intention to
"However, there is some question as to how far it is modified by an equitable principle known as promissory estoppel." Where a promise is not supported by consideration, the promise may be binding under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel excludes the general need of consideration within a contract and stops a person going back on their promise. This is to avoid any injustice. This essay will look at how promissory estoppel relates to the doctrine of consideration and whether
Question 1: Introduction: Emily agreed to work in her mother, Margaret’s antique store when she was 16 and in return she would receive any unsold dolls. However, later Margaret decided to give the unsold stock to charity. Assume that Emily acted on Margaret’s original representation. In order to advise Emily it is necessary to evaluate the key facts, and then determine if a contract exists and whether Emily could enforce the promise relying on promissory estoppel. The next step would be
Tripp does not apply here as there was no request for payment at an earlier date than required which would disable Long’s claim. However, in advising Long, one must consider the possibility of Kajai invoking the defence of the promissory estoppel to estop Long
Poole: Contract Law ANSWERS - SELF TEST – ENFORCEABILITY OF PROMISES– INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS, CONSIDERATION, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND DURESS 1. What is the effect of including an "honour clause" in a written agreement? (2) An "honour clause" has the effect of rebutting the normal presumption of an intention to create legal relations in a commercial agreement (1). Its effect is to render the agreement binding in honour only so that it will not be a legally binding contract. (1) 2. What
The Court of Appeal (CA) in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (MWB) v Rock Advertising Ltd (Rock) settles an issue which there had been conflicting decisions previously by confirming that contracts which expressly prohibit oral amendments can be amended orally. However, it may also have created doubt on the effectiveness of anti- oral variation clauses. This case between the Claimants, MWB, and the Defendant, Rock was held in the civil division of the CA on appeal from central London County Court
binding precedent, yet it essentially created the doctrine of promissory estoppels In terms of a legal claim, estoppels are being used as a defence against another’s claim, it is also quite usual to say that estoppels can be used as a ‘shield but not as a sword’ ;proprietary estoppels, as decided in cases such as Crabb v Aruncan very definitely be used as a sword. The distinction between proprietary and promissory estoppels is that, proprietary estoppels arises from an owner’s encouragement of or acquiescence
cost of the building constituted a valid enforceable claim against his estate under either the doctrine of mutual promises or in the alternative under the concept of promissory estoppel.” However, there were no other promises from which Timko relied as consideration for his promise concerning the building; therefore the only thing they could base anything on would be promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is used where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party