The Principle Of Justice And Of Equity

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

One of the formal components of an enforceable contract is consideration. Lush J defined consideration as: ‘...may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given suffered or undertaken by the other.’ The definition provides guideline to decide the existence of a consideration. While consideration is necessary for an agreement to be enforceable. The development of equity court has allowed promises to be enforced even without consideration. This essay contends that under certain circumstances like promissory estoppel, a promise can be enforced even without support of consideration. The essay considers the development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel by looking at how the courts have applied the principle in cases。As such application practically manifests the role of judicial discretion which might undermine provision of certainty and predictability of common law rules in contractual disputes. We will discuss the role of judicial discretion and then conclude by considering the status of certainty and predictability in the law.

The equitable doctrine of implied-in-law contract, a quasi-contract, would have allowed the court to award monetary damages to a plaintiff for providing work or services to a defendant even though no actual contract existed between the parties (Cheeseman, 2015, p. 195). This would apply to the situation in which Sam received some form of payment for his units before he shipped the units to the store. In this case, Sam would have been under the legal obligation to send the units to the chain store. Promissory estoppel (or detrimental reliance) is an equity doctrine that permits a court to order enforcement of a contract that lacks consideration (Cheeseman, 2015, p. 220). Promissory estoppel is used to avoid injustice. The elements of the promissory estoppel include the promisor making a promise, the promiseé replying to the promise, the promiseé taking action on the promise, and experiencing injustice when the promise was not enforced. The promissory estoppel in this case is invalid because there was no discussion about the compensation in return for the 1,000 units, no action based on the promise, and no injustice suffered as a result of fulfilling a

A contract is an arrangement between two or more parties that creates rights and obligations to each party. The essential parts of a contract are as follows:

A contract is simply an agreement which has legal value so that it is binding on both the parties, and each of the party can enforce it lawfully in case of any contravention of the terms of agreement. For an agreement to take the form of a contract, it is necessary for it to contain four essential components of a legally binding contract . These include,

However, because Harry detrimentally relied on Tom’s promise by building a 2000 sq. ft room onto his house to make room for the trains, he should be able make a claim of promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an exception to the classical elements of a contract. The courts should allow a contract to be enforced albeit it lacks consideration by allowing detrimental reliance to substitute for consideration.

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

A contract is an agreement made with an intention of legal rights and obligations which the law will enforce. It contains the agreement, consideration and intention. It also have some other things to consider, like capacity of parties, genuine consent or legality of object.

Contracts are a legal agreement between two or more parties that provide details of their rights. Thus, some business contracts can be very complex, therefore, it is important that the parties have someone who is familiar with the law to inspect the documents before signing them. Normally, contracts are composed of an offer, that details terms and conditions that must be met. Moreover, if the terms and conditions are not met per the contract, there can be legal ramifications that follow. Ultimately, contracts are legal agreements that provides details about what is expected from each participant so that there are no misunderstandings in the future (Summers, 1969).

The function of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is, under our view, defensive in that it estops a promisor

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

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

To have a complete understanding of what a contractual agreement entails, it is imperative one knows first what exactly a contract is. A contract is best defined as a written or verbal agreement, usually regarding employment, sales, tenancy, or promises between two or more parties. Because most contracts are legally binding, the breaching of these contracts can result in legal action being taken against the party at fault. “No Magic Words, Or How to Read a Contract” written by Duke University’s Director of Scholarly Communications Kevin Smith, discusses the issues that may arise from contracts, as well as the importance of appropriately choosing contracts on a case by case basis. Smith states early that contracts are “private law arrangements intended to do specific things that the parties to the contract have decided on through clear language” (Smith, 2012, Para. 2).

A contract is a legally binding agreement or relationship that exists between 2 or more parties or don’t want form a legal relationship between 2 parties. A contract can be defined as a legal binding between 2 or more parties within their promises that the law will enforce. For a contract to be an offer, it must be made by the acceptance by both parties which it must contain consideration.

A contract is a written or spoken agreement between two or more parties that involves the exchange of two promises, which is intended to be enforceable by law. The four basic elements are the offer, consideration, acceptance, and mutuality. When elements are broken down individually, each one is just as important as the next. If one of these elements are broken or misunderstood, it could mean result in the contractual agreement becoming not valid and end in lawsuit. The overall purpose of the contract is for legal purpose and to keep a order within an agreement.