Origin of PE

PE Variation of contract must be supported by consideration in order to have a binding as a contract [ Brikom Investment Ltd v Carr] In certain circumstances, promises to accept a modified performance of a contract to be binding, even in the absence of consideration. Promisor is estopped (prevented) from going back to his promise. 'ondition )( '!ear and une+uivoca! promise Promise stated payment can be made in pound and other currency& -ot a c!ear promise& -o PE as must be free from ambiguity to ensure the representation %i!! be reasonab!y understood & "oddhouse v #igerian PE operates to modify e.isting !ega! re!ationships, rather than to create ne% ones. In 6igh 8rees, there is !and!ord and tenant re!ationship. Condition 70 # shie!d not a s%ord" [related to the se(ond point ((on(erning the need /or an e$isting relationship!6] 'ue /or Hus8and not keeping his promise9 #o P-9 P; does not create ne% cause of action %here none e.ist before, It is on!y prevent promisor from insist his origina! strict !ega! right& Com8e v Com8e 'ontrast:-Aus Case [rejected by English law]- Promisee used PE to sue Promisor %ithout pre&!ega! re!ationship& PE as $ kne% that ' e.posed to detriment in acting re!ied on promise, it is unfair to act to encourage detriment, so, $ estopped from denying it %as bound9 "altons 'tores v %aher Baird TH v %&' C:, ()**1! :e7ect re!ied on 5a!ton ;tores, and stated that any type of estoppe! or P; cannot create cause of action in Eng!ish 9a% Comment0 P; on!y used as defence for promisee but not used to enforce promisor"s promise This e.p!ain %hy in 5i!!ian v :offey, P(promisee) cannot raise P; to sue promisor In "illiams1 it is ;uote Lord .enning statement0 estoppe! cannot give rise to a cause of action Even though consideration is not needed in the P;, but it is necessary in formation of a ctt, and therefore, on!y then P; can be raise as defence for promisee since P; itse!f cannot used as ne% cause of action. 'onsideration sti!! needed as a %ho!e formation of contract. 6o%ever, it is no needed in modification in ctt (such as P;) or discharge of ctt.

a promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its terms proper!y app!y". #pp!ying this princip!e, $enning he!d that a promise to accept a !o%er rent during the %ar years %as binding on the promisor, even though promisee had supp!ied no consideration for it.& Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (194 !

'ontrast( 9ord $enning himse!f %ho, in, he!d that promissory estoppe! cou!d Promise !ack of c!ear +uantity app!y in a situation %here and price& -ot a c!ear there appeared to be no promise& -o PE as the no e.isting !ega! re!ationship at ob7ective criteria by %hich a!! bet%een the parties& the court cou!d assess %hat -venden v 2uild/ord City 3C %ou!d be reasonab!e either (19 4! as to +uantity or price. 'onditions( (therefore proved there is no Comment0 I8'9: a!so)& Baird Te$tile Holdings Ltd v %arks 6o%ever, if app!ied even in )) '!ear and *ne+uivoca! no re!ationship case1 then it & 'pen(er pl( )**1 promise 5ill contravene %ith be!o%( a ,) -eed for e.isting !ega! shie!d but not a s%ord"6 re!ationship Promise from conduct in accept the modification but /) # shie!d not a s%ord" not e.press it& Va!id promise& P; cannot be brought as ne% 0) -eed for re!iance cause of action1 it is only PE& 8here is promise, c!ear 1) 2ust be ine+uitab!e for de/en(e /or promisee6 une+uivoca!, can be imp!ied the promisor to go back from '"s conduct, a party on the promise %ho has %aived his rights If there is no !ega! 3) $octrine is genera!!y cannot after%ards insist on re!ationship, then of course, suspensory them if the other party has acted on that be!ief different!y no cause of action. 4) 5here promise" is from the %ay in %hich he prohibited by !egis!ation %ou!d other%ise have acted& -o cause of action then ho% "+ ,lan v -I #asr to bring the case up to court. 6igh tree case suggest )&1 as re+uirements %hi!e 3 depend on circumstances Lord .enning give e$ample If no invo!ve the court, then on sale o/ goods0 P; cannot raise as defence o ;e!!er may by his for promisee conduct, !ead buyer be!ieve that he is not insisting on terms in (tt o <uyer may by his conduct, re+uest de!iver1 !ead the se!!er to be!ieve that he is not insisting the contractua! time for de!ivery Condition )0 -eed for e.isting !ega! re!ationship

Consideration vs P' issue0

Condition 40 -eed for re!iance High Tree0 a promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its terms proper!y app!y". Promisee re!ied on the promise suffer no detriment [see 6igh 8rees %here the promisee %as c!ear!y not %orse off as a resu!t of the promised reduction in rent?

Condition A0 $octrine is genera!!y suspensory

5hereas a contract modification %hich is supported by consideration %i!! genera!!y be of permanent effect, !asting for duration of the contract, Promisee get benefit& PE can the the same is not true of be raised as it %ou!d be <,s a result o/ the redu(tion the ine+uitab!e for promisor to go promissory estoppe! 8usiness 5as (arried on and to the promise& The post the defendants arranged their back (haser PE disapp!ied after affairs on the basis of the reasonab!e time& High Trees& reduced rent 5ith the resu!t after 55,& then revived the that the p!aintiffs are :e!iance by promisee on!y origina! term of ctt estopped from c!aiming any need to sho% that he had !ed rent" by the promise to act different /rom %hat other%ise PE disapp!ied after he %ou!d have done& Tool reasonab!e notice& Tool %etal Condition 40 2ust be %etal (ases %anu/a(turing v Tungsten ine+uitab!e for the promisor -le(tri( to go back on the promise But -ot every case that promisee re!ied on it is not easy to see The Post Chaser =19>1]1 ?o8ert sho%ed promise1 and there/ore %hy right to enforce 2o// + emphasi=ed that a promisor cannot go back to strict right cannot promisor %i!! not be a!!o%ed his promise. revive automatica!!y in to enforce his origina! 8oo! 2eta! while it can contractua! rights %here it be done in High Trees. %ou!d be ine+uitab!e having If it is not ine+uitab!e [no regard to the dea!ings %hich detriment to promisee in this have thus taken p!ace (ase]1 then promisor is <oth invo!ve %ar time bet%een the parties" a!!o%ed to go back to his issue. promise& The Post Chaser (19>)! 5hat does ine+uitab!e" mean> The better e.p!anation #!though se!!er is reasonab!e notice is I/ promisee has e.tracted the (promisee) had act on a better mechanism promise by taking advantage the promise (8y hand [the case is more !ater o/ the promisor1 then it is over to su898uyer!1 but than 6igh 8ree? to e+uitab!e for promisor go they had no any ensure there/ore it is no back to his promise detriment due to very more ine;uita8le to go short time bet%een the 8a(k to promise6 date of promise, Promisee forced promisor to re!iance and re7ection make a promise& -o PE can (on!y %ithin , days). :easonab!e notice be raised as Promisee put further used in E# pressure on the promisor and #7ayi v :8 <riscoe 9td compe! them to do %hat they )@30 un%i!!ing to do. =. & C Builders v ?ees]

detriment& PE app!ied, right e.tinguished& -, ,Bayi v ?T Bris(oe Ltd 19A4 [Privy Council case, persuasive] ?e;uirement0 Promise on!y become irrevocab!e if promisee having a!ter their position %hich cannot restore to origina! position. 'ontrast( Promisor agreed to received part payment& PE app!ied, e.tinguish right& 'ollier v "right )** ?e;uirement0 o (1! a debtor offers to pay part on!y of the amount he o%esC o ()! the creditor vo!untari!y accepts that offer1 and o (7! in re!iance on the creditorAs acceptance1 the debtor pays that part of the amount he o%es in fu!!1 the (reditor 5ill1 by virtue of the doctrine of promissory estoppe!, be bound to accept that sum in fu!! and /inal satis/a(tion o/ the 5hole de8t6 6o%ever, this case on!y ru!ing %hether $ had the estoppe! as the defence but not %hether part payment can be e.tinguish rights. ;o, a!though it is c!ear!y mentioned, maybe it cannot be a strong authority.

Promisor make a promise of %hat prohibited by !a%& PE not app!ied& -vans v ,mi(us Health(are Ltd

Condition ( PE not app!ied to promise prohibited by !a% Condition 4 @ Condition 40 Contrast0 Promisee had acted upon the promise and suffer