Last news

We can write for you any academic task. That is why we give our customers a unique opportunity to contact the editor that works on the order directly. Meeting your deadlines is..
Read more
Name of the second largest river of Africa is The Congo. A piece of land surrounded by water on three sides is known as peninsula. Parekh 1958 Darshan ane Chintan (Philosophical essays)..
Read more

Doctrine promissory estoppel essays

doctrine promissory estoppel essays

money as requested essays on spoon river anthology by the plaintiff, could be recovered. Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd 11 case allows for suspension of payment to be reverted back to active payment as long as reasonable notice is given. The appeal court stated that the doctrine of estoppel should. In this case wwii made it impossible for the original contract to be kept to, hence the parties re-negotiated during this period.

The court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel and held that the landlord was entitled to receive any outstanding amounts during the period after the war had ended, however he was stopped from claiming any amounts accrued during the war. The use of estoppel is to stop the promisor going back on its promise where it has acted upon his detriment. The rule in Pinnels case is subject to exceptions, among others the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In the case of D C Builders the use of Promissory Estoppel was for unjust purposes and equity could not aid Rees, because an injustice would occur. Lord Denning stated that it could be considered equitable for the creditors to revert back to their promise and claim the amounts owed if it can be shown essay on memory process of making tea that the debtor had acted unfairly by putting inappropriate pressure on the creditors. The case law has shown that the doctrine of promissory estoppel will act as a shield in circumstances where both parties agree to different terms, usually regarding the payment, and will consider implications arising out of such agreements. In 1937 the claimants(C) let a block of flats in London to the defendants(H) at an annual rent of 2500.