GHANA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION (GIMPA)

FACULTY OF LAW
LAW OF CONTRACT 1
PRESENTATION BY GROUP 2

MEMBERS

EFFAH-DENNIS EMMANUEL KWAME FRIMPONG KOFI SETH

KUMAH PORTIA NARKIE DOWUONA-HAMMOND MARGARET
SHAMIRA FANINPO KOMBIAN DORMAN GERTRUDE
ASARE PRINCE KWEKU DASAA GRACIOUS ABEEMANSO
HENEBENG BERNARD ASAMOAH BONSU SAMUEL****BONSU SAMUEL

DATED: 12-11-19
 TOPIC:
“PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL WAS DEVELOPED TO MITIGATE THE
HARSH EFFECTS OF THE COMMON LAW

 DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF THIS DOCTRINE.

DO YOU THINK THIS DOCTRINE IS OF ANY
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE LIGHT OF
STATUTORY INTERVENTIONS IN GHANA.
SUPPORT YOUR ANSWER WITH RELEVANT
PROVISIONS”
 OUTLINE
OUR DISCUSSION WILL FOCUS ON THE
FOLLOWING THEMATIC AREAS

 THE PRINCIPLE AND SCOPE OF THE

DOCTRINE
 QUALIFICATION FOR THE DOCTRINE TO
APPLY
 EFFECTS OF THE DOCTRINE
 ANY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DOCTRINE IN
LIGHT OF STATUTORY INTERVENTIONS IN
GHANA?
 INTRODUCTION

PROMISSORY –
A statement containing or conveying a
PROMISE or ASSURANCE
ESTOPPEL –
A French word “I’estoppel” – A legal
principle that precludes a person from
claiming facts that are contrary to previous
claims or actions.
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL –
Is a legal principle that a promise is
enforceable by law, even if made without formal
consideration when a promisor has made a
promise to a promisee who then relies on that
promise to his detriment.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is
a doctrine of equity.
THE PRINCIPLE AND SCOPE
OF THE DOCTRINE
The principle of the doctrine of estoppel principle is to the effect
that if one party to a contract, by his words or conduct, leads
the other party to believe that his strict rights arising under the
contract will not be insisted upon, intending that the other party
should act on that belief, and he does act on it, then the first
party will not afterwards be allowed to insist on his strict legal
rights where it would be inequitable for him to do so, even
though the first party, upon giving reasonable notice, may
resume his full legal rights under the contract.
 Requirement for the Principle to apply

1. Theremust be existing contractual

relationship between the two parties. Case:
Adjayi v. R.T. Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd
The doctrine applies where there is an existing
contractual relationship between the two parties.
The contract is usually one which gives rise to
continuing or recurrent obligations.
2. Clear and unequivocal Promise. Case: IBM
World Trade Corporation v. Hasnem
Enterprise Ltd.
There must be a clear and unequivocal
promise or representation.
The promise must be intended to affect
the legal relations of the parties;
to the effect that the promisor would not
insist on his strict legal rights arising out
of the contract.
3. Reliance Case: WJ. Alan & Co. Ltd. v. El Nasr Export
and Import Co

The promisee must show that he conducted himself

or his affairs in reliance on the representation or
promise of the promisor.

This requires that the promisee must have altered

his position in reliance on the promise;
That is, he must have been led to act differently
from what he would otherwise have done, as was
the case in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Company.
4. Circumstances Must Be Inequitable.
The principle will apply only if it would be
unfair or unjust for the promisor to go back
on his promise and insist on his strict legal
rights under the contract.
This point is well illustrated in the case of D
& C Builders v. Rees.
5. Doctrine Does Not Create Entirely New Rights
where None Existed Before Case: Combe V
Combe
6. Principle of generally suspensory Case: Tool
Metal Manufacturing Co. Limited v. Tungsten
Electric Company
 EFFECTS OF THE DOCTRINE

The doctrine of Promissory estoppel begun to

emerge to estop or disentitle a promisor
from insisting on his strict legal rights under
a contract after he has promised to suspend
those rights even in the absence of
consideration as long as certain conditions
existed.
 The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a
defence not a cause of action. It’s a shield
not a sword.

 The doctrine allows an injured party to

recover on a promise upon which he relied,
and then suffered a loss as a result.
 It provides reliefs for Promisees who acted
and incurred detriment based on a viva
voce promise as in Combe v Combe case

 Helps provide remedy to the promisee who

ordinarily would have lost a valuable
because of lack of consideration in a
contract
ANY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
DOCTRINE IN THE LIGHT OF
STATUTORY INTERVENTIONS IN
GHANA?
 ◦ “In Ghana, we have reformed the doctrine of
consideration in some of its more undesirable
aspects (Date-Bah S. K, 1969)”

 The enforceability of modification contracts

has been addressed by the Ghana Contract Act,
1960 (Act 25) which prevails over the common
law doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Section 8(2) of the Contract Act, 1960 (Act 25) provides:
 “A promise to waive the payment of a debt or part of a debt
or the performance of some other contractual or legal
obligation shall not be invalid as a contract by reason only of
the absence of any consideration therefore “

Section 9
 “The performance of an act or the promise to perform an act
may be sufficient consideration for another promise
notwithstanding that the performance of that act may
already be enjoined by some legal duty, whether enforceable
by the other party or not”
 The effect of sections 8(2) and section 9 of Act
25 is to give effect to modification of contracts
without the constraints of the strict
requirement of proof of consideration.

 The Ghanaian position, under in section 8(2)

provides a better security to the contractual
parties than is possible under the doctrine of
promissory estoppels
 Under section 8(2) a promise once given is
binding even before the offeree acts in reliance
of it

 Under the promissory estoppel principle, the

offeree has no protection until he has acted in
reliance on the promise
 Also, the statutory rules tend to be flexible and
certain in their application.

 Case laws show that the binding nature of the

promise in issue can be terminated by the
offeror by giving appropriate notice to the
offeree (Adjayi v R. T. Briscoe, and Tool Metal
Manufacturing Company Limited v Tungsten
Electric Company Ltd (1955)).
The legal position in Ghana is that the
offeror can only be released from the
binding nature of the promise only by the
consent of the offeree.
 CONCLUSION

 In sum, it seems from the above that Ghana

has comprehensively addressed the issue of
enforceability of modification contract under
Act 25 and therefore the common law doctrine
of promissory estoppels has little significance.
 THE END

 MERCI DE VOTRE ATTENTION

 (THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION)