The Doctrine Of Promissory Estoppel

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

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

Promisee must incur a detriment or confer a benefit on the promisor (Currie v Misa).

(2) Tamanaha, Brian. 2008. “Law”, Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-0095. Link in Course Readings and Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1082436&rec=1&srcabs=1012051

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.

To properly understand the events a chronological descripcion of the litigation is to be provided.

This paper is prepared in order to understand the IRAC format (Issues, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion). The IRAC format is considered as the standard format for soling the case studies of the law. In this paper, the case of “ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES V DEDERER (2007)” is selected to demonstrate the learning about the comprehension and understanding of terminology of law, particularly the terms used in the Law of Tort. Moreover, critical things and case law searching to solve the case study is also practiced and properly referenced in the solution of the case study. Here is the case study solution:

Issue 1: The trial court deemed that “in electing to forestall the declaration of a breach of contract in an attempt to secure the performance of the defendants thereto, was reasonable and it was proper under the circumstances for plaintiff to set a reasonable time in which defendants were required to complete the contract”. Wendling, the plaintiff set the date of September 21st, 1973, which the court found reasonable since within the letter sent September 11th gave the defendants 10 days to act.

The plaintiff, First Colonial Bank for Savings entered into an interpleader action in the District court to determine who was entitled to the surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale. The foreclosed property belonged to the defendants, Robert H. and Sherrell L. Bergeron, and the codefendants, Ford Motor Credit Company, the junior mortgagee of the foreclosed property as a result of corporate restructuring Ford Consumer Finance Company was substituted as the defendant for Ford Motor Credit Company. Both the Bergerons and Ford filed motions for summary judgement as they both felt entitled to the surplus. The district court ruled in favor of Ford Motor Credit Company and denied the Bergerons motion. The Bergerons appealed the decision of the District Court because they argued that they filed for and were discharged from bankruptcy prior to the foreclosure sale, therefore they believed that the security interest granted to Ford prior to their petition does not carry over to the surplus funds received after filing the petition.

When I was present, the plaintiff and defendant were each giving their precedent. The plaintiff’s representative talked James King sent a threatening letter to Judge Seel’s house. In which, he explained descriptive evidence on how King made “threats” to Judge Seel in his argument. James King, on the other hand, was a man with a lot of “problems”. He stated that he was not in the right state of mind when he made the threat to Judge Seel. Also

The second part of the paper will review the arguments of crown and counsel while comparing them towards the judge’s decision. Counsel argued the accused the accused use of

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 court ruled that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was correct for the promissory estoppels claim. The plaintiff’s breach of contract claim case was remanded back to the lower court for further determination.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

In this essay we will discuss the process of legal research, writing, and analysis. The subject matter will be presented in a clear, concise and objective manner. The textbook that we will be referencing is "Gilbert Law Summaries: Legal Research, Writing, and Analysis" 10th ed, BarBri Group, 2006.