This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
for a bargain. One promise in exchange for another. Not the physical act of giving something. Looking for something of economic value. o What is it that constitutes economic value?
(iii) Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a promisor Can you enforce that promise to do more than contractually obliged. Stilk v. Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. 317; 170 ER 1168 – a sailor brought an action for payment of wages for a sea voyage. He is claiming EXTRA money, which was promised to him when two of the ship’s crew deserted. The two deserters’ wages would be shared out between the others. Lord Ellenborough – Sailor not entitled to the money. We’re not sure why because there are two versions of the report of this case. 1809 – independent court reporters reporting on cases, no databases. 1.Campbell report – the reason the sailor was not entitles to the extra money is because there is no consideration and because the sailor was already contractually obliged to sail the ship back to the UK. He offered his labour for first promise of wages. For second promise offering same thing. For Campbell, promise of doing the same thing you were already obliged to do does not = good consideration. 2.Espinasse – he couldn’t claim money on grounds of public policy. Not a good idea to encourage sailor to extort money in the middle of the sea from the captains. He says this is a case of duress and not a case of consideration at all. Nb. REFER TO LECTURES ON DURESS. Problems with having two reports: - Campbell though to be better reporter. But Espinasse was junior counsel on the case as well. - Commonly thought Campbell’s version is better – SEE TREITEL on how to justify Campbell version of this case. Compare: Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 7 E & B 872 – sailor claiming wages. Court says he can claim because so many of the sailor’s had deserted it completely changed the nature of the voyage. Offer to provide extra wages was supported with consideration. Performance of an existing con duty owed to prom is not good consideration, but if you are doing something considerably different, it is ok. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd  1 QB 1 (READ THIS CASE) Roffey (def) contract to refurbish a block of flats. They then subcontract some of the work to Williams and they pay Williams by instalments after every flat they complete: payment on piecemeal basis. After nine flats William contact Roffey t o say they might not be able to complete on time – financial problems - Staffing -
Proposition 4: As a consequence of a promise to pay more. 77 ER 237: payment of Cole’s debt of 8 pounds and ten shillings. No fresh consideration.If you continue on work schedule you can feed in the work to your contractors. Following Stilk you’d think this extra payment is not enforceable but in this case court found that it was.effective.Proposition 6: The practical benefit to B is capable of being valid consideration in this case. LJ Glidewell’s judgement (READ): . On this basis Roffey liable to penalty clause under the main contract. LJ Glidewell thought the following things would amount to practical benefit: .Roffey didn’t have to got to the expense of hiring anybody else.Proposition 2: At some stage before A has completely performed. Academics thought that this case meant that the doctrine of consideration had been replaced by this idea of practical benefit. A practical benefit enough to enforce a contract? Trickier than that.Proposition 1: A has entered into a contract with B to do work. that benefit will be sufficient to amount to consideration. B obtains a practical benefit or obviates a disbenefit. Organise workforce . . Roffey fail to pay EXTRA money and Williams sues them. . That practical benefit is actually a legal benefit – and it is critical that the benefit is not obtained by duress. . This says if Roffey do not deliver flats on time they have to pay main owner of the flat. .Part payment of a debt: Is the promise to pay less than what is owed good consideration? o Pinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. Courts said part payment is not good consideration for the full amoun but two .Roffey were going to avoid that penalty clause because performance will come in on time.problems and not pricing the project carefully enough. . . . 11 November 1600 – due date.Proposition 5: B’s promise is not obtained by duress. . Cole argued that Pinnel had accepted a lesser sum on the 1st October and that should be it. If you promise not to enforce legal rights in some way is that good consideration? Most important one: .Proposition 3: B then offers/promises A an additional payment in return for A’s promise to perform on time. The basic line is if as a result of the promise to pay more Roffey were getting a practical benefit. B has reason to believe that A will not complete.Williams were continuing to perform the contract. Claim we’re interested in: Where Roffey brothers say promise to pay more is not supported by consideration because Williams were only promising to do what they were contractually bound to do anyway. They decide to pay Williams more money per flat that is completed on time. supply goods or services to B in return for payment – standard contract.
Foakes owes Mrs Beer money. But you can’t. Is that extra bit enforceable? Judge: part payment of a debt is not good consideration. This is obiter partly due to the fact that he is first instance. Dr. F v B – debt. . That tri-partite relationship between two parties that agree not to sell shares and third part is the company. Conflicting authority. How can you reconcile both cases? In Re Selectmove Ltd  1 WLR 474. They agree Dr Foakes can pay Mrs Beer by instalments. it seems that the whole practical benefit has been really constrained to goods and services only. Either performance of an existing contractual duty generally or performance of the debt. – debt claim. Therefore wrongly decided. W v R has only two people – so cannot compare the two. In Fowakes and Beer what was argued was Mrs Beer was advantaged by the fact that Dr Foakes had paid the debt off. READ: Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 – debt claim. Does W v R apply to part payment of debt cases? LJ Peter Gibson: impressed by W v R argument.this debate is only applies when you’re offering performance of something you promised to do. Foakes refuses to pay more money says he doesn’t owe anything. When the main sum is paid up.exceptions: .if you offer to pay less before the due date.CoA in 1991. get rid of it. Eng Wales position: W v R – goods and services. which involves three parties. What you’d like to do is argue Beer had a practical benefit by having debt paid off early. Where does that leave W and R: If you have practical benefit with thing offered – should be enough. It doesn’t apply outside that remit and following Selectmove. . Williams and Roffey . What Coleman said Pao On is a situation. And Foakes and Beer was not even cited in W and R. Contradiction and CoA is later than HoA. and the courts said no part payment not good consideration. Coleman first instance rejected W v R. Can’t apply practical benefit in all instances. CAVEATS: . WRONG. which is getting squashed. but bound by HoL decision so the position appears that W v R applies to contracts for goods and services and Foakes v Beer applies to debt. But W v R has been doubted by a good judge so there is flack for this decision. South Caribbean Trading Ltd v Trafigura Beheer BV  1 Lloyds Rep 128 – filter thorugh to discussion on performance of exiting duty. Benefits were important in that case.If part payment is made on the due date but you offer something else as well which is of value to the promisee. – Rubbish because Glidewell relied on reasoning in Pao On to reach practical benefit reasoning here. He owed he more than the main sum. Problem: Foakes and Beer is HOL in 1884. So Dr Foakes had to pay the extra. Court judgment debt means interest starts to accrue on the debt.
Australia) READ. Promissory estoppel is a way courts have devised how to get around variations in contracts usually in debt claims. in two situations: . They then say while you are thinking about it.it is good consideration (not to take it forward) if I agree that I owe you money but you agree not to pursue it. Different to Glidewell’s case. Develops in the following way: Hughes v Metropolitan Railway CO: landlord Hughes lets property to respondent railway co. What cost that you would avoid by paying this extra money/paying early?… and you have to be avoiding a disbeneift as well as getting a benefit. If the only thing is change the contract terms. but doesn’t say anything about the deferral of repairs. Not a cause of action in its own right. Negotiations break down on the buy-back. Part payment of a devt. Nb.Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 723 (Supreme Court. but can resist action to sue for full amount.is a defence to an action for breach of contract. Particularly in debt cases – there would be no consideration in such cases. He gives them six months to carry out repairs on the property. In Mc Kendrick. we won’t do the repairs. Judge reformulates six points of Glidewell’s to represent what he thought was the situation.Cook v Wright (1861) 1 B & S 559 . Promissory estoppel . you are also looking at the calculation of what that benefit means to you. The court assists the innocent party who though that the contract terms had been varied in their favour. Australian so not the law here. Can’t force you to pay less. Hughes starts to negotiate to buy back the lease. . Equitable doctrine rising out of court’s desire to ensure fairness/justice in contractual dealings. Can he exercise this right under the lease? . In this case judge appled W v R to debt. New bargain. is that change enforceable? In this situation it is unfair to say such agreements are unenforceable. What are courts doing in promissory estoppel – protecting the bargain struck between two parties.Wade v Simeon (1846) 2 CB 548 Doctrine of Estoppel – developed through equity not common law. But we are happy to carry out the repairs. What do you think of Glidewell’s judgment? Can you reconcile? Forebearance to sue. lease is forfeited.READ .Hughes serves notice to quit = excercises right of forfeiture. Because official. Unfortunately the six months notice to repair expires on day after letter sent . New South Wales. here contracted. The railway co asks Hughes if he is interested in buying them out of the lease. For our purposes: think where you are in this debate. if repairs are not carried out. W v R been extended. In Aus. That’s done by official notice. which changed the contract and protecting parties’ reliance on that contract. Point 4 and 5: not only are you looking for a prac ben. The respondent writed to Hughes and say they will (?) carry out repairs. Can a promise not to sue somebody amount to consideration? YES.
 K. . In 1940. That in fact the second they started negotiation on buy back of lease. for promissory estoppel for wor.130 (READ THIS) Concerns the rent on a block of flats. Basic criteria in High Trees. The flats let on a 99-year lease. Hughes is estopped from going back and enforcing notice by his conduct. that first party can then not go back on that promise and insist on their contractual rights and claim full contractual rights. Hughes didn’t do anything to say that that was not the case. 1. Core – Where a person makes a promise and that promise is then relied on by another party. but only binding during war period because the was is the reason for the change. -> If a party by their conduct leads another to believe by their conduct a new state of affairs then that party is stopped by their conduct from enforcing their contract. So HTH asked CLPT if they would reduce rent to help them get tenants. Relatiionships in BoE set up in BoE Act in 1882. Promissory estoppel– suspendary effect. could be relationship set up by a statute. According to court. If not contractual.There must be a pre-existing relationship between the two parties. Then the war ends. Rent dropped to £1250. time on notice stopped running. so it was difficult to get tenants for the flats. Nb.Hughes cannot force the railway co out of the premises and technically referred to as the ‘entitlement to relief against forfeiture’. easy to get tenants again and CLPT want to go back to original rent fee. but there must be a personal relationship which can in certain circumstances can give rise to certain liabilities and pnalities. London was getting bombed. can in fact be extended to promissory estoppel. Hughes led them to believe that time on notice had stopped. Relies on Hughes for this general idea and says that Hughes although estoppel by conduct. a relationship created by statute would be enough for the per el. Can’t be forced out.B. HoL: Hughes’ conduct had led the railway co to believe that they didn’t need to carry out repairs. What does that mean? Durham City Fancy Goods v Michael Jackson (Fancy Goods) Ltd  2 QB 839 – liability on bill of exchage What does this pre-exisitng relationship have to be? He says doesn’t have to be contractual. but not claim arrears during war. For Denning what is important is that both parties were aware of the effect the promise would have. High Trees House Ltd. Subsequently courts have developed in more detail. Six things you have to show for promissory estoppel: 1. Hughes is authority for estopped by conduct. *Central London Property Trust v. Question for court: Can they insist on the new and back rent? Denning case: invents new law in it. Argue they want to increase rent to original figure 2. In this case. Claim back rent. ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT – prevented from going back. This means that the promise to vary tenancy is binding. CLPT were going to be able to increase the rent at the end of the war. Annual rent = £2500. Reasoning: There is a case Jordan and Money (promises in the future).
Only for the suration os the promise. It also seems to be that it needed to be detrimental reliance in Hughes. Because you cant make a definitive determination. Clear unequivocal promise must be shown – must affect legal relationship between parties. Clearly taking advantage of financial diffulties – pushing for final amount. Must be certain its affect legal relationship of both parties. Doesn’t have to be made express. 2. Reliace on promise by promisee. that is sufficient. didn’t think detrimental reliance was necessary but you need some sort of change instead. Court did say the assessment of clear and unequivocal promise is an objective one and it has to be a promise and not anything else because of Jordan v Monney (statements of future condict are not enforceable). it must be inequitable to go back on promise. Part payment of a debt – full £500. Unlike Foakes v Beer.The Henrik Sif  1 Lloyds Rep 456 – extension of what is pre-exiting contract. It is important ot see this as suspensory only. Nigerian pound = pound sterling.” .R. Then there was a devaluaion of Nigerian currency. The finally agrees to take three hundred pounds. Hire of goods. Ahnge of circumsances but don’t have to suffer. 19 3 – In post chaser: What do we mean by change of postion? Problem of loss of of opportunity. The claimant pushes to get paid. and sale of ship. Woodhouse Israel Cocoa v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd  AC 741: involves a situation of the purchase of goods for a fixed price. In this case. In Post Chaser again and Look at D & C Builders v Rees  2 QB 617. Q: Does it need to be detrimental reliance? Because idea of claim is that it is an equitable claim founded in fairness. 3. Lj arden: this is going to be promissory estoppel because it is inequitable to go back on teh promise to take part. Believed in rel. Wat does that do tto the contract? Can you insist same or MORE? The courts said in this case it was impossible to tell. not a clear and unequivocal promise. The claimant (builders) had worked for defendant. promissory estoppel is a shield not a sword. Denning: In Coomb and Coomb. Complex shipping case. 6. Oils M’sia (The Post Chaser)  1 All E. but implied (has o be clear). but weren’t. Prmissory estoppel is only a defence. Question for court. Court says: even if no contractual relationship if you have something which looks like a contractual relationship. Toolmetal case. The essence of a contract – enough to form/found relationship for promissory estoppel. the other thing that happened was that money w as saved as money was saved and then lost. 5. the def knows claimant is under sever financial hardhip but hey still sue for full amount. 4. You cannot say what the parties thought was going to happen on devaluation. High trees. courts said it was enough. WJ Alan & Co v El Nasr  2 All ER 127 : Denning.
stored eggs. Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd  EWHC 2161 Promissory estoppel in a non-contractual contract.Promissory estoppel used by cancer patient. and you will be estopped. Partner broke up and refuse to let her have access to embryos –she argued we have pre-existing. lost fertility. Primary reason. .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.