AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW

CASE STUDY

WALTON STORES VS MAHERS

PRESENTED BY; MUHAMMAD

AFTAB
 WALTON STORES VS MAHERS

• ISSUES
• RELEVANT LAWS
• ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
• CONCLUSION
 ISSUES AND FACTS
• WALTON STORES PROMISES TO USE
PROPERTY OF MAHERS ON LEASE
• BOTH AGREED ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS
• MAHERS STARTED DEMOLITION OF THE
PROPERTY AS PER DECIDED
• WALTON STORES RETREATED FROM THE
PROMISE
• MAHERS SUED
 RELEVANT RULES

• UNCONCIONABLE CONDUCT ON
WALTON STORE’S BEHALF
&
• PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
Elements of promissory Estoppel
• Current or prospective legal relationship
among the parties
• Promise made by one or both parties
• One party relies on the promise of the other
• Loss caused by promise
• Unconscionable conduct
 To establish an equitable estoppel,
plaintiff (P) must prove:
• Plaintiff assumed a particular legal relationship existed
between the parties (or expected that it would and that
D would not be free to withdraw)
• Defendant has induced that assumption in P;
• Plaintiff acts (or abstains from acting) in reliance on the
assumption;
• Defendant knew or intended P to so act;
• Plaintiff’s action/inaction will cause him detriment if
the assumption is not fulfilled
• Defendant has failed to act to avoid that detriment (e.g.,
by fulfilling expectation)
 COURT DECISION
• Walton Stores appeal was dismissed and it
was held that Walton had to continue his
promise or pay the damages to Mahers.