Promissory Estoppel:
Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine that can, subject to certain conditions,
allow a party to enforce a promise that is not supported by consideration if the party
has relied on that promise.
Where a promise is made to excuse a party from contractual obligations, the persons
who made the promise will not be allowed to go back on the promise, where the
promise has relied on the promise made.
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947
Conditions:
1. There must be a pre-existing contractual relationship Combe v Combe 1951
2. There must be a voluntary promise to waive strict legal rights
3. The promise must be intended to create a legal relations and intended to be
acted on by the other party
4. There must be an act in reliance of the promise The Post Chaser 1982, Alan
&Co v El Nasr 1972
5. It must be inequitable for the promise to go back on their promise D&C
Builders v Rees 1966
6. The promise usually operates to suspend strict legal rights- does not destroy
them forever Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd
1955
7. The promise does not give rise to a cause of action.
8. Doctrine operates as a shield not a sword Combe v Combe 1951
Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine that can, subject to certain conditions,
allow a party to enforce a promise that is not supported by consideration if the party
has relied on that promise.
Where a promise is made to excuse a party from contractual obligations, the persons
who made the promise will not be allowed to go back on the promise, where the
promise has relied on the promise made.
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947
Conditions:
1. There must be a pre-existing contractual relationship Combe v Combe 1951
2. There must be a voluntary promise to waive strict legal rights
3. The promise must be intended to create a legal relations and intended to be
acted on by the other party
4. There must be an act in reliance of the promise The Post Chaser 1982, Alan
&Co v El Nasr 1972
5. It must be inequitable for the promise to go back on their promise D&C
Builders v Rees 1966
6. The promise usually operates to suspend strict legal rights- does not destroy
them forever Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd
1955
7. The promise does not give rise to a cause of action.
8. Doctrine operates as a shield not a sword Combe v Combe 1951
