The Principle Of Justice And Of Equity

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.

The Supreme Court of Canada has defined natural justice as “fair play in action”. The natural justice ensures that the justice is done to both the parties involved in the dispute. The natural justice consists of equality before law, right to be heard and no one should be a judge in his own case. These fundamental principles have been followed over the centuries by the courts to ensure justice to who seek.

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

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

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,

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

1) A contract is an agreement made between two or more parties which are recognised by Law. There have been many scenarios such as the rejection of offer, leaving a voicemail to accept the offer, letter been posted on the same day and also a note through the door stating that offer has been accepted by David.

The principle behind estoppel is to prevent injustice owing to inconsistency or fraud. There are two general types of estoppel: promissory (or equitable) and legal. Promissory estoppel means where the representator induces the relying party to believe that whatever rights within their contracts are not be enforced. Promissory estoppel is the principle of Justice and equity. Estoppel occurs when a party reasonably relies on the promise of another party, or to prevent someone from arguing something in contrary to claim act performed by other person. An estoppel is not a remedy "at law" in common law jurisdictions, but based on principles of equity. In the majority of cases, it is only a defence and it works by prevention from enforcing established legal rights, or from relying on a set of facts that would give rise to enforceable rights (e.g. words said or actions performed) if that enforcement or reliance would be unfair to the defendant. Its effect is to defeat generally enforceable legal rights, the scope of the remedy is often very limited. Promisors - one who makes a promise and another is promisee - one to whom promises have been made.

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.