The Doctrine Of Promissory Estoppel

In 1969, Massachusetts fashioned the law 40B, famously referred to as the “Anti-Snob Zoning Act”, which allows developers to bypass land use restrictions in towns where less than ten percent of the housing meets the state definition of affordable. There are multiple positions and solutions to friction in Massachusetts largely inspired by controversy surrounding the State's affordable housing law, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40B between housing advocates and open space advocates. This thesis reviews and critiques the current law, and diagnoses various legislative proposals for the progressive feud.

When Jack proposes to Ken to ‘part payment of debt, ' he is asking to pay £2,000 less to Ken, for the same job. Ken gains no legal benefit if he promises but he does gain practical benefit since he would not have to take Jack to court, and ‘run the

The appellants complain that the tax court fail to apply debt-equity principles. The secondary inquiry cannot be reached unless the first question concerning whether an economic

A court awards a judgment to Loan Collection Agency, who is the creditor, against Margret, who is the debtor. After the judgment, the creditor requests a court order to seize Margret’s property to ensure that the judgment will be collectible. This is

Many constitutions all over the world provide basis for innocence until proven guilty. As such, the courts of law must always factor in the provisions of criminal procedure and natural justice when cross-examining offenders. In light of this, the exclusionary rule allows a defendant to argue his case if his privacy rights were violated before arraigned in court. In essence, the provisions of the exclusionary rule prevent the government authorities and machinery such as FBI and CIA from gathering evidence from an individual in a manner that disrespects the United States constitution. Therefore, the exclusionary law protects an individual against unreasonable search or seizure in line with the provisions of the Fourth

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

In the case of Sam vs. Quinn, his landlord, and the national chain store. Sam is who is working on a great innovation, a device that sounds like a barking dog that will help assist in the safety and welfare of others. Several months ago, Sam hit the jackpot that would change his life and landed in a verbal contract to sell 1000 units to a national chain store. However, this young inventor has been mass producing this product from his place of residence, his apartment, own by Mr. Quinn. Sam arrives home one day to find two letters, one from the chain store demanding the 1000 units be delivered immediately. The other was an eviction notice from Mr. Quinn stating that his barking machine has been pestering the other tenants and that Sam was not supposed to be conducting business from his apartment. Sam is furious at both situations and decides to pro-sue the matters. Therefore, before the court can rule on these cases, the court should determine the various elements whether there is a valid contract, a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam’s claims.

1. The concept of selective incorporation according to We the People, was a “progression by which different securities in the Bill of Rights were incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1937 the “courts were still unwilling to defend civil freedoms beyond the First Amendment. The first case that established selective incorporation was Palko v. Connecticut. The courts determined that “the provisions of the Bill of Rights should be selectively combined and useful as a constraint on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment “(Ginsberg et al. 117). Gideon v. Wainwright “established the right to counsel during criminal courts”. The Miranda v. Arizona likewise established the right to counsel and remain silent” The incorporation that gained a lot of nationwide attention is McDonald v. Chicago where the “right to bear arms was granted” (Ginsberg et al. 118). This incorporation has paved the way for several national cities to pass gun laws.

It comes as no surprise that state laws and federal laws would conflict given then the activity of 50 state legislatures and the broad sweep of federal legislatures. Over the past six terms, the United States Supreme Court has decided over a dozen preemption cases. The doctrine of federal preemption is a clause in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article VI. The Constitution states that the laws of the United States shall be the law of the land, and those laws will bind the judges of every state. In the important 1958 case of Cooper v Aaron, the Court considered the efforts of state authorities to block integration of Little Rock 's Central High School. The Court unanimously declared that, "No state legislator or executive or judicial official can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. If the legislatures of the several states may at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a mockery." This means whenever the state laws conflict with the federal laws, the federal laws will always supersede the state laws. However, preemption is not that simple, it can be either implied or express, which can make the doctrine of federal preemption even more complicated.

In Billy Wilder’s 1944 blockbuster hit Double Indemnity, a fast-talking insurance salesman named Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) visits the home of the seductive Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) to renew the insurance policy on her husband’s automobiles. A romantic affair shortly ensues, and Walter is soon coerced by Phyllis into plotting a murder. Walter then comes up with an idea to receive double the amount Phyllis had previously intended, and they eventually deceive Mr. Dietrichson (Tom Powers) by making him sign a double indemnity insurance policy which in return states that the widow will receive full compensation on behalf of the bearer’s death. Mr. Dietrichson’s death is then made to look accidental; however, all does not go

Source of payments: The petitioners claim liquidity and the ability to pay interest or principal on amount owed, but conclusive findings show the insufficiency to pay interest or principal balance. This factor supports the treatment of the advances as equity.

While the case of Lockyer v Andrade appears at first to be about $150 worth of stolen property, it is about something much deeper and more fundamental to law and ethics. The determination in Lockyer v Andrade was that imprisoning someone for life on a theft case was acceptable. Additionally, the size of the theft was considered—could someone really serve life in prison because of a hundred and fifty dollar’s worth of videos? The answer is yes they can be and it is not even considered cruel and unusual, because it marks a history of criminal behavior and a complete lack of recidivism. The law in question is a “three strikes” law, which stipulates that a criminal who is charged a third time with a felony crime can be sentenced to life in prison.

When the negotiable instruments the holder-in-due course occurs when the payment is still obligated under the contract from the drawer and is the holder of the promisory note or check. The promisory is a promise of good faith and when there is a disqualification the holder is the one still entitled to the responsibility of payment. For example, if the terms are because of late payments, damaged goods, or overdrawn fees the institution is still able to collect the money along with any fees associated (Negotiable Instruments & Banks, 2013).

In Kaye, this Court relied on comment a to § 295 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts for the proposition that “[d]ischarge by release . . . has long been regarded as an executed transaction rather than an executory promise.” Kaye, 227 Md. App. at 682. Therefore, any right to maintain an action on the released obligation ceased at the time Lawrence Kaye gave the release. Likewise, in this case, “a lawsuit predicated on claims that have been [waived] cannot be actionable as a breach of contract, because a [waiver] is a unit of consideration that is tendered . . . immediately at the time of contracting.” Kaye, 227 Md. App. at 682.

The Latin principle of caveat emptor literally meaning let the buyer beware, has been followed for many years by the English courts in the context of business transactions. Pre the industrial revolution the action for breach of contractual rights needed a written warranty otherwise action could only be brought on the grounds of fraud. The reasoning for such action was based on the manner in which business was conducted, that is, namely at small fairs where buyers could inspect the goods and haggle accordingly. This is evidenced in cases such as Chandelor v Lopus in which a plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in relation to a Bezoar stone which was thought to have medicinal properties. In this instance, the majority of the