Elements in a Contract 30
Promissory estoppel (equitable
estoppel) is an equitable doctrine and it operates in accordance with equitable
principles. According to the doctrine, when one party makes a promise to
another party and the second party relies on the promise and acts to his or her
detriment than that promise is a valid promise and is a promise that is
enforceable at law.
In Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
(1877) the tenant under a lease was obligated to keep the property in a good
state of repair and the landlord having inspected the premises and found that
the tenant hadn’t complied with the obligation gave the tenant 6 months to
complete the repairs failing which the tenant would have to vacate.
Subsequently, the tenant and the
landlord entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of the property
and the tenant who was under the impression that the property was going to
shift hands or that he was going to acquire the property failed to make the
stipulated repairs because the repairs were not something he’d make if he owned
the property.
Towards the end of the 6-month
period the negotiations had broken down and the tenant did not make the
necessary repairs and the landlord claimed that the lease had been forfeited
because the tenant had not made the said repairs.
It was held that the 6-month period
started from the time the negotiations had broken down. Where the landlord had
by himself entered into negotiations with the tenant after he’d stipulated that
a failure to make the repairs would result in the forfeiture of the lease, that
stipulation is deemed to be held in abeyance or is suspended until the
negotiations are complete and the tenant can rely on the implied promise that
the landlord will not forfeit the lease until the 6-month period is complete or
has run its course.
In Central London Property Trust
Ltd. v High Trees House Ltd. (1947) the plaintiffs owned a block of flats and
rented it out to the defendants in 1939. The defendants in turn sought to rent
out each flat to make up the money that they were to pay the plaintiff.
Subsequently the Second World War broke out and many of the flats remained
unoccupied. The plaintiffs allowed the defendants to pay only half the annual
amount that was due to them. In 1945 the flats were fully occupied and the
plaintiff claimed the rent for the last 2 quarters. The Court of Appeal found
in favor of the plaintiff and allowed them to recover the full rent for the
last 2 quarters but qualified it by saying that should the plaintiff have tried
to recover the full rent that was due to them between 1940 - 1945 they would
not have been successful.
Is this then an exception to the
rule in Pinnel’s Case (1602) which says that in instances of debts, part
payment will not amount to sufficient consideration? – (equity varies with the
length of the Lord Chancellor’s foot)
Pinnel’s Case (1602) was reaffirmed
in Foakes v. Beer (1884) where the defendant owed the plaintiff a certain
amount of money and made an arrangement with the plaintiff to pay it off in
installments but no mention was made of the interest. The defendant eventually
paid off the full debt as promised but the plaintiff brought an action for the
outstanding interest and the plaintiff was successful.
Promissory estoppel however cannot
be used to create a new right and neither can it be used as an offensive tool
because the equitable maxim that equity is used only as a shield and not a
sword will apply. The party relying on promissory estoppel merely seeks to
enforce an existing promise that he or she has acted on.
In Combe v Combe (1951) Mrs. Combe
relied on her husband’s promise to make maintenance payments and brought an
action against her husband for failing to adhere to the promise relying on the
doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court held that there wasn’t a legal
promise in place (domestic agreements are generally not considered or regarded
to be legally binding agreements) and that promissory estoppel because of its
equitable nature cannot be used to bring an action against someone.
Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward
and Kathiresan Ramachanderam
Comments
Post a Comment