Geosource Case Study

Geosource Case Study
A few employees have tried to get around the at–will employment contract by claiming fraud, bad
faith, or some similar theory. With two exceptions, they have all lost. In both of the exceptions, a
court recognized a promissory estoppel claim against the employer. The first exception is Roberts v.
Geosource Drilling Services, Inc., 757 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. App. –– Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ).
In that case, Geosource hired Roberts to work on an offshore project. Roberts signed a written
contract with Geosource, though the contract provided for employment at will. Relying on oral
promises and the written agreement, Roberts quit his current job and prepared to go to work for
Geosource. A few days later, Geosource called him and told him ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It is no answer that the parties' written contract was for an employment–at–will, where the employer
foreseeably and intentionally induces the prospective employee to materially change his position to
his expense and detriment, and then repudiates its obligations before the written contract begins to
operate. Several other courts have rejected Roberts or have found ways to distinguish it. No court
has followed Roberts. It is not clear whether any court will follow Roberts in the future, but as of
now it remains good law. The second exception is Hernandez v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.,
496 F. Supp. 2d 778 (W.D. Tex. 2007). The facts of that case are essentially the same as Roberts,
except that the employee had actually moved from Illinois to El Paso based on the promise of
employment. Apparently, the only damages that the plaintiff sought were his travel and moving
expenses. The federal district court noted the conflict between Roberts and the other Texas state
court cases, but declined to resolve the conflict: The Court recognizes that a split exists between
Texas state appellate courts, and declines to opine on that
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Cohen V. Cowles Media Co
Katie Sterritt COMM 441 March 3, 2017 Case Study – Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. Cohen v.
Cowles Media Co was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the First Amendment
freedom of the press does not exempt journalists from generally applicable laws. Cohen, the
Plaintiff, was a campaign associate in the 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial race. He gave court records
concerning another party's candidate for lieutenant governor to the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the
Minneapolis Star and Tribune (both owned by Cowles Media Co, which was the Defendant).
Though he had received a promise of confidentiality from the reporters, the papers identified Cohen
in their stories. He was fired as a result. Cohen sued the papers in state court, alleging a ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
What happened in this specific case is that the newspapers published the name of their source
without permission. In this case, the press was not even immune from its sources because the source
wished to remain anonymous and the journalist wishes to disclose it. The current laws of the land,
and the gray areas of forecasting potential consequences of publishing a story with confidential
sources places the press in a very precarious situation ("Shield Laws in the Unites States"). Which
brings up the question of shield laws protecting those who ask the reporters for their names to be
kept anonymous in the story. The outcome of the case was that it was submitted to the jury on the
theory of breach of contract and misrepresentation ("Case Briefs"). The jury that was on this case
found liability on both counts and awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in
punitive damages against each newspaper for misrepresentation. The Court of Appeals set aside the
misrepresentation damages, but affirmed the compensatory damages. The State Supreme Court
affirmed the setting aside of punitive damages. Also, decided that the compensatory damages were
not enforceable under standard breach of contracts theory. In regards to the Supreme Court, it found
that, in a majority decision, that against respondent's claims that it had no jurisdiction. They cited
the Orr v Orr case of 1979 of whether the arguments in

Marks And Spencer Plc Case Study
Case Note Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274 Date of
Appeal: 28 February 2001 Name of Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division Name of Judge: Sir
Andrew Morritt V–C, Judge and Mance LJJ Appellant: Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd. (Baird)
Respondent: Marks & Spencer plc (M&S) The area of law covered in this case includes the
intention to create legal relationship and implied contract between two parties. The issue of estoppel
relating to conventional basis for both parties was also included. The appellant had been the supplier
of garments to M&S for 30 years, when on 19 October 1999, M&S determined to terminate all
supply arrangements with Baird. The special partner relationship between two parties was developed
based on the spirit of co–operation and good faith, which they trusted one another and converse
freely, without any expressed contract between them. Given the unique partner relationship, the
appellant had reasonably believed in supplying goods for the long–term linkage when relying on the
co–operation culture. When M&S decided to terminate the arrangement, Baird sought damages on
the basis of such arrangement was terminated without a reasonable notice of three years. The cause
of action is breach of contract, with implied terms. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The appellant appealed on the issue regarding to implied contract. M&S cross–appealed based on

Questions On The Legal Right
The overarching question which this essay will address is whether Stephanie has any legal right to
Sunderlandland or Sunderland. The essay will analyse three subsidiary questions, the first being
whether the Sunderland was a fixture or remained a chattel, if it was a fixture then the new owner of
the land also acquired ownership rights to it. The second issue is whether there was a valid contract,
'a binding agreement to sell and transfer land in return for the payment of an agreed price' , between
Stephanie and Wangle for Sunderlandland. In relation to this, the final question being whether
Stephanie was able to use the defence of proprietary estoppel, which revolves around the idea that 'if
a verbal promise is made to someone who ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Nonetheless, there can be doubt casted upon the court's decision in Holland v Hodgson regarding
the looms being fixtures. This is because when using the first test Thompson proclaims that only if
the item, 'cannot be removed without destroying that structure... it will regarded as being part of the
land' , but was held that the looms could easily be removed 'without any serious damage to the
flooring.' Conversely, in Chelsea Yacht and Boat Co Ltd v Pope the damage to the land was
considered a significant factor as the Court of Appeal deemed the degree of annexation of the
houseboat which was moored on the Thames to be insufficient as Tuckey LG stated: 'the houseboat
could be moved quite easily without injury to itself or the land.' However, Berkley v Poulett
undermined the importance of the degree of annexation as Scarman LJ declared it 'may now prove
nothing' as, the second test, purpose of the annexation takes precedence. The purpose of annexation
is judged upon whether the item 'has been so fixed for the better enjoyment of the object' or 'to
affecting a permanent improvement of the freehold' . Leigh v Taylor' corroborates Scarman as the
court held that the tapestries were chattels as although they were affixed to the walls, the purpose of
the annexation was for 'the tapestry to be enjoyed as an ornament rather than to enhance the
building' . The case of Mew v Trismire further strengthens Scarman's contention, as

Gillett v. Holt Essay
Gillett v. Holt
The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is an equitable intervention in cases where the enforcement of
legal rights is considered by the courts to be unconscionably unfair. The essence of the doctrine
arises, as defined by Snell:
'[when] one (A) is encouraged to act to his detriment by the representations or encouragement of
another (O) so that it would be unconscionable for O to insist on his strict legal rights.' (McGhee,
2000, p.637)
In the absence of a written agreement, estoppel acts as an evidentiary tool with which the courts can
help ensure fair interaction in property dealings. Proprietary estoppel is a method by which informal
arrangements are recognized as being ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Whether this amounts to a departure from the criteria laid down by Oliver J in Taylor Fashions v
Liverpool Victoria Trustees (1982)[2] that a claimant must prove an assurance, a reliance and a
detriment in circumstances where it would be unconscionable for the defendant to strictly assert his
legal right is crucial in determining the status of proprietary estoppel after Gillett v Holt.
Proprietary estoppel has been available as an equitable remedy for decades, performing Equity's
duty and intervening in instances where the absence of an informal agreement results in a manifest
abuse of legal property rights. An early case that gave it credibility as a legal option was Inwards v.
Baker[3] in which a son who had constructed a bungalow on his father's land upon his request and
lived in it with his family for over 30 years was granted a licence by estoppel to remain on the land
for as long as he desired despite the absence of a written agreement. But it was 85 years before this
that the basis upon which a claim for proprietary estoppel could be successful was laid down. In
Willmott v Barber (1880)[4], Fry LJ formalised the criteria in the 'five probanda': a) that the
claimant must have made a mistake as to their legal rights over some land belonging to

Proprietary Estoppel
"In Thorner –v– Major, the House of Lords confirmed that a claimant seeking to establish a
proprietary estoppel must prove three things: (1) that the defendant's assurances or conduct in
relation to identified property were sufficiently clear and unambiguous in all the circumstances, (2)
to lead the claimant reasonably to rely on those assurances or conduct; (3) by acting significantly to
his detriment, so that it would be unconscionable for the defendant to deny him any remedy." (Per
Hayton and Mitchell: 'Commentary and cases on the law of Trust and Equitable Remedies', 13th
edition, Sweet and Maxwell, page 78) Critically analyse and evaluate this statement in light of
recent developments in the law of proprietary estoppel. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This requirement for a specific assurance narrowed the scope of operation of the doctrine and was
inconsistent with previous Court of Appeal decisions such as Gillett v Holt and Jennings v Rice
where a claimant had an expectation of a future interest in land. Lord Walker further restricted the
doctrine by stating that the claimant must believe "that the assurance on which he or she relied was
binding and irrevocable". Therefore the claimant must not only believe that the landowner has made
a promise, but also believe that the promise is legally binding. He made it clear that context was
important. "In the domestic or family context, the typical claimant is not a business person and is not
receiving legal advice...The focus is not on intangible legal rights but on the tangible property which
he or she expects to get." As the parties involved in Cobbe were "persons experienced in the
property world, both parties knew that there was no legally binding contract, and that either was
therefore free to discontinue the negotiations without legal liability...the fact is that he ran a
commercial risk, with his eyes open" This restriction is also inconsistent with Gillett v Holt which
"explicitly addressed, and rejected, the notion that the revocability of wills prevents a promise to
make a will forming the basis of a proprietary estoppel claim." Surprisingly it was Lord Walker who
gave the leading judgement in that case and acknowledged here that "It may

What is Consideration?
A promise will not be enforceable until it is supported by consideration. "Consideration means an
act or promise given in exchange for the promise." A promise to pay more must be supported by
consideration since, the factual benefit cannot amount to consideration to accept less. "However,
there is some question as to how far it is modified by an equitable principle known as promissory
estoppel." Where a promise is not supported by consideration, the promise may be binding under the
doctrine of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel excludes the general need of consideration
within a contract and stops a person going back on their promise. This is to avoid any injustice. This
essay will look at how promissory estoppel relates to the doctrine of consideration and whether it
overlaps when considering the creditors promise to accept less.
Consideration is where the parties need to promise to do something or give something. The common
law helps us understand what amounts to good consideration. A good consideration is if the parties
gain a benefit or suffer detriment. There are three element of consideration. Firstly 'consideration
must be sufficient but it need not to be adequate.' This is where in the Court need to recognise as the
consideration being of something value. Secondly 'past consideration is not good consideration.'
Thirdly 'the consideration must move from the promisee'. However after taking into account the
doctrine of consideration, we will need to know how

Abigail V Council Essay
C.) For case three, the question in law for me is whether there has been a relevant consideration for
the reduction in rent; and the payment plan between Abigail and the council. And whether Abigail
can estop the council from the removal of the new payment plan as it is a contract between the two
of them. Under modern English law, the doctrine of consideration is used in place of the requirement
of forms. Consideration is best described in the case of Currie1. If one party accrues a benefit,
because of some detriment place on the other party. So, I would argue under this definition there is
some form of consideration between the council and Abigail. As the council are willing to take
reduced payment for a period (detriment of the council, a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
the council. Makes a promise to reduce rent by 50% for a period (unambiguous representation.),
they then shouldn't be able to demand something that is contrary to this representation, because of
an unexpected upturn in income of the other party (Abigail). Promissory estoppel can be divided
into five separate parts. First, there was a promise of future conduct, with an intention for a legal
relationship, on these new terms. I would say this would apply for Abigail as the council has
accepted the reduction of rent by 50% for the duration of the work, caused by them, but I digress.
And the making and implementing of the new payment plan. This to me, by the council's actions,
shows they wanted an amendment to allow her to stay and sell, therefore showing they wanted to
create legal relations. Second, and third, has a party relied upon the promise to their detriment. I
would say this is satisfied, as because of this new promise, Abigail reject a move to Beverly, as this
new promise allowed her to make her rent and pay debts that had accrued. Fourth. This doesn't stop
any right previously owned by either party12.

What Is Promissory Estoppel
Contract law course work assessment Promissory Estoppel; This essay focuses on the principle laid
down by lord denning J, In the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd,
the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which is an equitable doctrine that has arisen to mitigate the
harshness of the rule that emanated from the case of Foakes v Beer, which states that part–payment
of debt is never a good consideration for a promise to discharge the entire debt. And The essay will
also discuss the concept of consideration and with case laws and relative authorities will show how
the doctrine of promissory estoppel is exception to the general rule. The doctrine gives an idea that
one can be "estopped" from going back on their word ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
High Trees is the land mark case in the development of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. In this
case, there was an agreement between landlord and tenant to reduce the rent payable by half in order
to stop people leaving their flats during the war. Since the plaintiffs knew their promise would be
acted on it was an enforceable promise, despite the absence of any consideration. Arguably the
tenants did give consideration by staying in the flats and continuing to pay rent. By 1945 the flats
were fully occupied again, but the landlord company had gone into receivership. The receivers
wanted once again claim full rent from the tenants. Denning, J. recognized that the promise was
understood by all parties to apply whilst the conditions giving rise to the promise were in force (the
war), so the landlord (or as now, the receivers) could only claim full rent after the war had
terminated. Their legal right to claim full rent, as part of their legal contract, was in 'suspense' during
the prevailing conditions of the war. In his obiter dictum Denning, J. sought to rely on the dictum of
Cairns in Hughes "a promise to accept a smaller sum, in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon is
binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration." Thus the equitable doctrine of promissory
estoppel came into

Legal Law In Pinnel's Case Of Foakes V Beer
On the facts, Amy agrees that although Charlie owes her £1000, she will accept £500 instead.
Charlie pays Amy £500. Thus Charlie owes a contractual duty to pay off the debt to Amy. The issue
arises between Amy and Charlie is whether the £500 paid to Amy could satisfy as the full settlement
for the debt of £1000. Basically, there are special rules applying to contractual duties regarding
debts. The court in Pinnel's case explained that payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of
a greater cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it appears to the judges that by no
possibility a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum. On the other hand,
there were also an established principle in Pinnel's case, if a debtor offers to pay a reduced sum back
to the lender in full and final ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In Foakes v Beer, as per Earl of Selborne L.C., his Lordship implied that for a contract which is not
being under seal, it cannot be legally enforced against the respondent in that case, unless she
received consideration for it from the appellant, or unless, though without consideration, it operates
by way of accord and satisfaction. He further explained on "accord and satisfaction" by addressing
that in point of fact there could be no satisfaction, so long as any future instalment remained
payable. In the present case, it can be said that the alleged contract was not operated by way of
accord and satisfaction. An accord and satisfaction contract must be advantageous to both
contracting parties. This simply imply that since Charlie was the only party who receives advantage
from the part payment, Charlie could not rely on the agreement as being accord and satisfaction, in
the absence of consideration, although it was voluntarily agreed by Amy to accept part payment as
full settlement of

Proprietary Estoppel
| Contents | Page No: | 1. | List of Authorites (Cases & Statutes) | 2 | 2. | Answers (Mainbody
& Conclusion) | 3–10 |
List of Authorities:
Cases : 1. Crabb v Arun 2. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Tress House Ltd 3. Ramsden v
Ryson 4. Willmott v Barber 5. Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd 6.
Matharu v Matharu 7. Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Trustees Co 8. Gillet v Holt 9. Dillwyn v
Llewellyn 10. Inwards v Baker 11. Jennings v Rice 12. Lloyds Bank v Carrick 13. Birmingham
Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd v Sabherwal 14. City of London Building Society V Flegg
Statutes : 1. LRA 1925 S. 70(1)(g) ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, he continued in an obiter statement that if Central London had tried to claim for the full
rent from 1940 onwards, they would not have been able to. This was reasoned on the basis that if a
party leads another party to believe that he will not enforce his strict legal rights, then the Courts
will prevent him from doing so at a later stage. This obiter remark was not actually a binding
precedent, yet it essentially created the doctrine of promissory estoppels
In terms of a legal claim, estoppels are being used as a defence against another's claim, it is also
quite usual to say that estoppels can be used as a 'shield but not as a sword' ;proprietary estoppels, as
decided in cases such as Crabb v Aruncan very definitely be used as a sword.
The distinction between proprietary and promissory estoppels is that, proprietary estoppels arises
from an owner's encouragement of or acquiescence in another's mistaken belief about his present or
future rights in the owner's property: in other words, the owner represents in some way that the
belief is correct whereas, promissory estoppels arises from a promise made from the promisor to the
promisee not to enforce his rights, then later on seeks to go back on his promise and is unable to. A
hypothetical case discussed by Lord Cranworth in Ramsden v Ryson:
''If a stranger begins to build on my land, supposing it to be his own and I, perceiving his mistake,
abstain from serring him right and leave him

The Principle Of Justice And Of Equity
Introduction Estoppel is a principle of justice and of equity. It was defined by Lord Denning MR as
the situation where 'a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of
affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it when it would be unjust or inequitable for him to do
so'. A promise gives rise to the reasonable expectation that the promise will be kept. As such,
promissory estoppel corresponds with the objectively justified belief/ anticipation of fair dealing, or
the 'reasonable expectations of honest men' This is because under the doctrine of promissory
estoppel, a party can rely on a promise made by another party that is unsupported by consideration,
when certain conditions are met. Prima facie, this seems to mean that promissory estoppel goes
against the principle of the sanctity of contract, the general idea that once parties enter into a
contract, they must honour their obligations under the contract, since the existing contract is
undermined. This essay seeks to show that while the main purpose of promissory estoppel is to give
effect to the reasonable expectations of honest men, it tries to strike a balance by also striving to
preserve the sanctity of contract. Only exceptionally, will promissory estoppel go directly against
the sanctity of contract, allowing claims for full expectation losses. Consideration A contract is an
agreement comprising of an offer, acceptance and the intention to create legal relations, which is

Common Law, Promissory Estoppels, And Pinnel Rule
In common law, promissory estoppels , consideration and Pinnel rule which are both essential as
they will ensure unjust outcomes do not occur. The word promissory means a to imply a promise,
and estoppel means to stop or come to a halt. In 1974 Justice Denning developed an obiter dictum
statement which included promissory estoppel, ultimately meaning that a promise is enforceable by
law. For Promissory estoppel to occur, it requires that the promisor to give a clear and
understandable statement which requires that the promise has acted on the promise. For Promissory
estoppel to occur, it requires that the promisor to give a clear and understandable statement which
requires that the promise has acted on the promise. When a person makes a promise, He or She is
than called the promisor , to a person called the promisee who relies on it to his or her detriment.
The word promissory means to imply a promise, and estoppel means to stop or halt, and there are
different types of promissory estoppel. There is estoppel by judgement, which helps to avoid
unnecessary repetition and duplication of legal issues, Estoppel of laches , reliance–based estoppel
which involves one party relying on something another party said and estoppel by deed. The first
case which was to use promissory estoppel was, Central London Property Trust Ltd V High Trees
House Pty Ltd and now is majorly used as a valid concept in courts today. Mainly because it
guarantees a fair solution that is not based on lies

Collateral Estoppel Case
B. THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE IN THE PRIOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING DOES NOT
IMPOSE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IN THIS SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL The judge's ruling
in the previous criminal proceeding to suppress evidence does not establish a lack of probable cause
because of the inapplicability of collateral estoppel. For the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply:
(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication must be identical to the issue presented later; (2) the
party against whom estoppel is asserted must be a party, or in privity with a party, to the prior
adjudication; and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted must have had a fair and full
opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action. Commonwealth v. Gant, 945 A.2d 228, 229 ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The court in Jackson v Davis stated that just because evidence is suppressed in a prior criminal
proceeding, that "does not prevent this Court from considering such evidence in connection with its
analysis of Plaintiff's §1983 claims." 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95600, 64 (W.D. Pa. July 14, 2014).
This is primarily true because the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply in § 1983
claims. See Padilla v. Miller, 143 F. Supp. 2d 479, 493–94 (M.D. Pa. 2001) (finding consistency
between the Second and Third Circuits in finding that "the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is not
available to a § 1983 claimant" based on the decisions in Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. Pa.
2000) and Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. N.Y.

The Principles Of Promissory Estoppel
The principle of promissory estoppel puts off one party from moving back from a promise proposed
to other party if the another party has logically relied on that assurance. A contract prepared with no
consideration is usually not legally enforceable. It is recognized as an uncovered or unwarranted
promise[ Shayne Davenport and David Parker, Business And Law In Australia (Thomson Reuters
(Professional) Australia, 2011).]. Consequently, if a vehicle seller assured a probable purchaser not
to sell any definite or precise vehicle over the end of any week but he act so, the promise could not
be made obligatory to be performed. But if the vehicle seller takes single money as consideration for
that particular assurance, the contract will be compulsory ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
v. Maher[ Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 7 HCA] the Australian High Court state
the view that promissory estoppel is the condition under which the contract can be claimed as valid
one even if it was not backed by the consideration. In the case of Wright & Anor v Hamilton Island
Enterprises Ltd[ Wright & Anor v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd [2003] QCA] the Supreme Court
of Queensland state that, the promissory estoppel is the matter which includes the notion of
unfeasibility, cannot expand to assurances which are conflicting with a afterward agreement
executed between the same parties for the reason those particular promises[ Martin Dixon,
'Confining And Defining Proprietary Estoppel: The Role Of Unconscionability' [2010] Legal
Studies.]. The following agreement may face evidentiary troubles for that promisee except where the
essential necessities of the promissory estoppel are recognized; counting the concept of
unconscionability if the said assurance is not fulfilled, and then the succeeding conflicting written
agreement will not exclude a verdict of promissory estoppel[ Martin Dixon, 'Confining And
Defining Proprietary Estoppel: The Role Of Unconscionability' [2010] Legal Studies.]. In different
opinion judges of Supreme Court of NSW stats that this mentioned doctrine is not a shield to avoid
the liabilities. It provides protection in the reasonable sphere. In the case of Bushby v Dixon Holmes
du Pont Pty Ltd[ Bushby v

Notes On The Principle Behind Estoppel
Introduction to promissory estoppel
The principle behind estoppel is to prevent injustice owing to inconsistency or fraud. There are two
general types of estoppel: promissory (or equitable) and legal. Promissory estoppel means where the
representator induces the relying party to believe that whatever rights within their contracts are not
be enforced. Promissory estoppel is the principle of Justice and equity. Estoppel occurs when a party
reasonably relies on the promise of another party, or to prevent someone from arguing something in
contrary to claim act performed by other person. An estoppel is not a remedy "at law" in common
law jurisdictions, but based on principles of equity. In the majority of cases, it is only a defence and
it works by prevention from enforcing established legal rights, or from relying on a set of facts that
would give rise to enforceable rights (e.g. words said or actions performed) if that enforcement or
reliance would be unfair to the defendant. Its effect is to defeat generally enforceable legal rights,
the scope of the remedy is often very limited. Promisors – one who makes a promise and another is
promisee – one to whom promises have been made. The doctrine of promissory estoppel considers
the circumstances in which one party to the contract shows the other party that made without
consideration when the reliance on the promise was reasonable, and the promise relied to one's
detriment (impairment). It

Change of Position Balances the Hardship between the...
Upon fulfillment of the four criteria, namely that the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the
claimant's expense and there are no defences available for the defendant, a claimant will qualify for
restitution of unjust enrichment as established in Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea)
Ltd. Change of position is one of the numerous defences which may be used when it would be
excessive to allow a restitution claim at the defendant's expense. This essay will evaluate the
defence of change of position and reinforce the stance that it is adequately effective in protecting a
defendant from hardship.
The purpose of change of position is to balance out the hardships between claimant and defendant.
In the landmark case of Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale, it states that if a claimant pays money to the
defendant, who then uses the money or changes his position in good faith, it will be unjust to require
the defendant to make restitution. This further solidified the status of change of position as an
accepted choice of defence against a restitution claim.
There are principles guiding change of position, rather than it being up to the courts' discretion.
However, in Lipkin Gorman, Lord Goff stated that the development of change of position should be
dealt with on a case to case basis , leading to much uncertainty regarding the defence of change of
position. Each case has distinctive facts and it is due to this uncertainty which provides flexibility
for the courts to provide

Concept of Promissory Estoppel
Promissory Estoppel Promissory Estoppel The legal doctrine known as promissory estoppel
describes the process whereby a party to an agreement or contract is barred from revisiting a part of
the agreement that is already settled, whether it be part of an original agreement or after the fact. It
stops someone from reneging on an agreement agreed to in good faith. As it relates to short payment
of a debt, it is generally held that partial payment allows the person owed the money to turn around
and sue for the balance at their discretion but this is not always the case based on case history. It
used to be that a balance was a balance and consideration must be paid for a person owed a debt to
forsake their legal rights under the original agreement but that has changed over time. Now, if a
person owed a debt agrees to a reduced payment in a binding way and the person owing the debt
reacts based on that revised agreement, the revised agreement generally is enforced and the original
terms under the original agreement are amended or disregarded. Loss of Legal Rights The concept
of promissory estoppel can lead to legal rights being limited for a party to an agreement simply
because a contract or other agreement seemingly settle a matter before to the extent that it cannot be
altered later even if one of the parties insists on it. Once an agreement is in place, especially if it is
written down, potential litigants will have a hard time going against that contract to execute a

The Doctrine Of Promissory Estoppel
For this assignment, the statement that "The doctrine of estoppel prevents a claimant from going
back on a promise and has been described as a 'shield and not a sword'. Will be evaluated using
relevant case law. First looking at the meaning of the doctrine that was developed by Lord Denning.
This will then be investigated with case law which looks at the practical application and judgments
found in these cases, giving clearer definition and meaning to the doctrine and look at an up to date
case to see if and how the principle may have developed. In conclusion, the key points will be
summarised and by the evidence provided by the documented case law, evaluate the statement to see
if it is true.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel was developed by Lord Denning in the case Central London
Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]. In this case, Lord Denning established the
doctrine "which acts as a defence to a claim by a creditor for the payment of the remainder of a debt
when part payment has already been accepted." (OU, 2017). It acts to suspend the legal right of the
creditor and stops them from enforcement of the original debt temporarily, forcing the creditor to
honour their promise to accept part payment and this part payment would carry on until the creditor
reactivates their right to the original sum.
In the above case, the agreement was confirmed in writing on 3rd January 1940. Judgement for the
plaintiff was granted because by the beginning of 1945 the

Essay on Summary of Dillon vs. Champion
BUS 345: Human Resource Management 7 July 2009 DILLON v. CHAMPION Background: Linda
Dillon has sued Champion after she was encouraged to take a more challenging position within the
company and was then fired for not meeting expectations. She claimed that she was told that it
would take several months to get up to speed and that Champion would give her extensive training.
Instead, she was only given four days of training and was fired without notice after two months.
This case highlights the care that employers should take with the design of employee handbooks.
Even where a handbook contains a prominent disclaimer stating that it does not establish any
contract rights, an employer must be careful with all of the handbook's ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The court ruled that the trial court's grant of summary judgment was correct for the promissory
estoppels claim. The plaintiff's breach of contract claim case was remanded back to the lower court
for further determination. 2. According to the text an implied contract is a type of wrongful
discharge claim that limits the employer's right to terminated if the employer has made written or
oral statements containing promises not to terminate at will, or implied such a contract through his
course of conduct with the employee. The implied contract in this case consisted of two points. First,
the written statements in the handbook were conflicting with the at–will employment relationship
and the disclaimer language. Second, the conduct and oral statements from the employer were given
that gave the employee reason to believe that her job was safe. The oral statement made by the
employer was "it will take you four to six months to feel comfortable with [the] position" which
gave the impression that she would have that time to settle in with the new job. The employer
breached the implied oral contract because in less then two months Dillon was called into her
supervisor's office and was terminated from that position in which the employer stated that it

Business Law Individual Research Assignment
Business law individual research assignment
Introduction
In law of contracts, estoppel is a principle used by the court to enforce promises that have been
made and subsequently relied upon (Wise Greek, n.d.). Estoppel restricts the party's ability to
contravene his promise. It is a legal enforcement of promises to prevent the unjust result.
The following essay mainly contains three parts to analysis estoppels. Firstly, it is about the
historical development which involves the development of the law of the estoppel and importance in
preventing the inequitable outcomes of common law. Then, it is the part of suitability and changing
in Australian position which analysis with two cases. One is Wantons' stores Ltd v Maher. The other
one is ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Australian position of estoppel
The principle of promissory estoppel was first adopted in Australia law is in Legione v. Hateley
(1983), about the main part of the procurement contract of land. Specify the terms of the contract
description as the fundamental basis of the contract.
Undeniable influence points out of a rule of evidence, an act which would put the applicant
groundless fortifications. However, there is no denying that the defense considerable results are the
realization of the expectations of the defendant. By confirm the commitment of the applicant, the
corresponding contract, and the court may decide to confiscate evidence, which have turned to all
sorts of the choice of contract. Taylor (2003) argues that such action may produce a criticism of the
"all or nothing" result of prohibition and to the restoration of the applicant in an actual loss events
increase defendant cannot diminish his expectations, choosing to consider banning agreed. On the
other hand, considering the doctrine of is still a difficult any obstacle in this direction.
The case of Wantons' stores Ltd v Maher, Maher in Nowra has some real estate and construction. He
talks with department store Walton land rental stores. They want to demolition of the existing
building and

Should The Abolition Of Consideration Would Be A Wrong Move?
The doctrine of consideration is one of the most provocative issues under common law that has
come under intensifying criticism because of the constriction of its definition. The definition of
consideration has a very narrow scope of view; However Consideration continues to clarify out
non–contractual promises. The other question which this essay will address is whether the
abolishment of consideration would be a wrong move. And if it were to be abolished would other
doctrines such as intention to create legal relations and promissory estoppel be equally effective.
The other question which this essay will address is, if the courts were right to limit promissory
estoppel to a defensive role and not a cause of action in Baird v Marks and ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
An agreement to accept a bill to be drawn in the future would (as it seems to me) by connection and
relation, bind on account of the antecedent relation, and I see no difference between itself being
before or after the bill was drawn". These judgements gave the formality of consideration to be
required in the formation of a contract in English law. Consideration still serves as a useful tool in
filtering out non–contractual promises. Non–contractual promises are non–enforceable agreements,
for example social agreements; nevertheless if one party claims otherwise, the courts will have to
prove the exceptions like business intent. There is a debate if illusionary estoppel is legal, or can
good faith parties be dragged into it. Moreover Lord Goff states in White v Jones that, "our law of
contract is widely seen as deficient in the sense that it is perceived to be hampered by the presence
of an unnecessary doctrine of consideration. But, while the doctrine may not be very popular
nowadays (it) still exists part of our law". Critics have argued that adaptability of consideration is
one of its strengths and if abolished the other doctrines won't be able to adapt to the modern contract
formation. And this was backed up by professor Treitel when he insisted that the courts have to
power to 'invent' consideration

Sandy V. Mark Case Brief
RELIANCE LAWYERS
TO: Client
FROM: Christine Bulos
SUBJECT: Sandy V Mark
DATE: 17th April 2017
CC: Partners@reliancelawyers.com.au
PURPOSE:
This memorandum analyses the contractual dealings between our client, Sandy, and Mark to
determine whether equitable and proprietary estoppel is applicable in this case, and whether the
promise Mark made to Sandy in regards to subdividing his land must be upheld.
SUMMARY:
QUESTION 1A) It will be argued that estoppel is definitely applicable in this case as no contract
was formally created by the two parties due to the lack of a formal written agreement , the intention
to create legal relations and the absence of sufficient consideration therefore what was
communicated between the two parties is ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Factors present that support this notion are the lack of a formal written agreement, the intention to
create legal relations wasn't present, and insufficient consideration.
Mark had promised to subdivide his land and transfer the ownership of the cottage you were living
in as a tenant to your name, and in effect encouraged you to disregard seeking a settlement with Pat
as well as substantially improve his cottage. This thus encouraged an induced assumption to be
made which you relied upon. Mark did not do enough to prevent your impending detriment from
occurring regardless of his initial knowledge and intention made. We will therefore use these factors
to our advantage and base the cause of action and arguments made on these.
As your lawyer, my main concern is to seek relief in the form of obtaining the cottage property for
you rather than monetary damages as that has been established to be of your main concern as
substantial improvements were made to the cottage using your own money as well as it being the
initial agreement between Mark and

The Case Of Alfie And Peggy
The fundamental issue in the case of Alfie and Peggy is whether the items in question are a part of
the land (fixtures) that can be acquired by Alfie in the convenyancing process, or whether they are
an item of personal property (chattels) that belong in the hands of the seller Peggy . According to the
Latin maxim 'quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedid'# , Alfie can claim ownership rights to the items in
question, if they are attached to the soil of the land. In other words, the items must all be fixtures
rather than chattels, for Alfie to seek ownership.
At face value, if an item is physically attached or annexed to the land, it is regarded as a fixture. It
could be argued that the antique mirror in the Queen Victoria is therefore a fixture, as it has been
'screwed' into a part of the land, meaning Alfie can make a claim of ownership to it. However,
physical attachment of an item is not enough to prove its fixture status. The degree of attachment, as
described by Lord Lloyd in Elitestone Ltd v Morris#, is also important in determining whether an
item is a fixture. For a fixture to exist, the level of attachment must be high. It could be argued that
the action of screwing a mirror into the walls of the Queen Victoria is indeed a very high level of
attachment, and even though items like the mirror may be easy to remove, as proven in Holland v
Hodgson#, these items are still fixtures because of the scale of their attachment. The level of the
attachment and the physical

Assignment Questions On ' Workbook Questions '
Activity 2 – WEEK 4 WORKBOOK QUESTIONS [Copy and paste your answers to the questions
marked "WORKBOOK QUESTIONS" from the Week 4 workshop exercises and problem questions
and Week 4 seminar questions here. Revise your answers to incorporate any feedback that you have
received. For example, feedback receive in class by your Instructor, individually during consultation
times, or by way of the weekly summary answers] Workbook Answers ANSWER 1 Issue: Is there is
rupture of security contract for this situation? Law: De Lassalle v Guildford is required to evidence
the presence of insurance contract. The criteria to poof the security contract is that announcement
more likely than not been expected as a guarantee which incorporate the primary contract
furthermore the announcement ought to be promissory in nature which impact other gathering to
enter in principle contact. Application: Ernie who is the sales representative of Savage Boats is
expressed with respect to the most extreme pace of the Dulux 500 motor. It 's obviously states for
this situation that the announcement is not promissory in nature. Moreover, this announcement is
only the assessment thought regarding the pace of the Dulux 500 motor furthermore Ernie advised
to Barry that he just drive little cruisers. In addition, rate is exclude in the principle contract.
Conclusion: there is no rupture of guarantee contract for this

Case Resolution Of Special Education Dispute Resolution
In accordance with Special Education Dispute Resolution Handbook a school district must
implement a Hearing Officer's decision within the timeframe specified by the Hearing Officer and
TEA is charged with monitoring the school district's implementation. Thus TEA expects compliance
with final orders of a Hearing Officer with the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the State
of Texas. This element of res judicata has been satisfied.
d) Imposes an Obligation, Denies a Right, or Fixes Some Legal Relationship – Final
Judgment/Agency Order
Order 8 establishes the legal relationship between the Parties as it pertains the issue of whether
BISD improperly including counsel in the March and April 2015 ARD meetings. Order 8 denies ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Under the transactional test, "the critical issue is not the relief granted or the theory asserted but
whether the plaintiff bases the two actions on the same nucleus of operative facts." Agrilectric
Power Partners, Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 20 F.3d 663, 665 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting Matter of Howe,
913 F.2d 1138, 1144 (5th Cir.1990) emphasis added). If the factual scenario of the two actions
parallel, the same cause of action is involved in both. Id. The substantive theories advanced, forms
of relief requested, types of rights asserted, and variations in evidence needed do not inform this
inquiry. ( Motient Corp. v. Dondero, 269 S.W.3d 78, 83 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2008, no pet.)
Operative facts are not restricted to the cause of action raised or the remedy sought. Agrilectric
Power Partners, Ltd., 20 F.3d at 665. Rather, "the nucleus of facts defines the claim rather than the
legal theory posed or recovery sought." Matter of Howe, 913 F.2d at 1144; Motient Corp. v.
Dondero, 269 S.W.3d 78, 85 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2008, no pet.) Variations in evidence is not part of
the transactional test. See Agrilectric Power Partners, Ltd., 20

Contract Law : Sanctity Of Contract And Reasonable...
INTRODUCTION There are two cornerstones of contract law: sanctity of contract and reasonable
expectations of honest men. The former relies on the ideal that once parties duly and autonomously
enter a contract, they are bound by and must honour the terms and obligations of the contract. This
principle allows for commercial certainty, where parties are aware that non–fulfilment of obligations
constitutes a breach in contract. The latter expounds beyond the strict obligations held under the
sanctity of contract, and allows modification of contractual relationships to fulfil the expectation of
honest and fair dealing between parties. There is no unified principle of estoppel in English law, but
a common theme underlying various doctrines relates to the rights of one who detrimentally relies
on the other's promises that would not be otherwise enforced. This paper will analyse these rights
through the lens of promissory estoppel. Despite the criticisms of estoppel upholding one theme and
undermining the other, it is submitted that the function of estoppel strikes an effective balance
between the reasonable expectations of honest men and the sanctity of contract. HOW ESTOPPEL
WORKS Denning J was the exalted authority for a new approach to the problem of unilateral
variations being treated as binding even when unsupported with consideration. In the event where
one party to a pre–existing legal contract provides a clear promise to which the other party acted in
reliance of,

Is The Mirror Image Rule?
________________________________________
ADVICE________________________________________ The facts quote that Kate never disputed
that she owed £ 2,500 to Orlando which show unqualified acceptance of the offer of Orlando. This is
the mirror–image rule which says that an acceptance has to be defined as final expression of assent
of exact terms of an offer. Determining Intention It may be that the promisor never anticipated that
the promise would give rise to legal obligation but if a reasonable person considers that there existed
an intention to create a legal relationship, then the promisor is bound. In favour of the seller
(Orlando) on the principle of reduced consideration in a pre–existing duty In the case of Foakes v
Beer the facts ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the case of Stilk v Myrick where a seamen had contracted with the defendant to pay him more
than was promised in the original contract if the defendant would work the ship home short–handed
and these extra wages were refused by the seamen later, the Court held that they were not entitled to
extra money because such extra payment was void for want of consideration and they were
contractually bound under the old contract for the original sum. The court recognized the concept of
economic duress as follows: '...if a sub–contractor has agreed to undertake a work at a fixed price
and declines to work further unless the contractor agrees to pay an increased price, the subcontractor
may be held guilty of securing the contractor's promise by taking an unfair advantage of the
difficulties caused...' However, this approach has been overruled and distinguished in some cases
where a contractor had promised a carpenter extra wages for some 'practical benefits'. Such new
bargain may not fail for want of consideration. This goes in favour of Kate. But these cases cannot
be determinately applicable in our factual situation

Promissory Estoppel Essay
One of the formal components of an enforceable contract is consideration. Lush J defined
consideration as: '...may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one
party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given suffered or undertaken by the
other.' The definition provides guideline to decide the existence of a consideration. While
consideration is necessary for an agreement to be enforceable. The development of equity court has
allowed promises to be enforced even without consideration. This essay contends that under certain
circumstances like promissory estoppel, a promise can be enforced even without support of
consideration. The essay considers the development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel by
looking at how the courts have applied the principle in cases。As such application practically
manifests the role of judicial discretion which might undermine provision of certainty and
predictability of common law rules in contractual disputes. We will discuss the role of judicial
discretion and then conclude by considering the status of certainty and predictability in the law.
Critical Analysis
● The situation where agreement without consideration is enforced and rationale behind
In classic interpretation of consideration and formation of contract. One commonly known situation
where consideration is not required for a contract to be enforceable is an agreement under seal
which is referred as a deed. In general

The Case Study Deals With The Doctrine Of Estoppel Essay
The case study deals with the doctrine of estoppel, which states that the court can prevent a litigant
from taking the matter to court where in normal circumstances, it could have taken place in order to
prevent an inequitable result on the other party. In that, estoppel occurs when one party depend on
the promise of another party and with that reliance that the party get injured or damaged. Therefore,
estoppel impedes a person from asserting anything to the contrary to what is stipulated or is in
contemplation with the law, or has been established as the truth by judicial or legislative acts. In this
case study, Mr. Roberts relied on the promise that was made to him by Mr. Martin, who was the
managing director of the Composters Company Ltd. The promise stated that their contract would be
extended for another four years if they would comply with the rules and regulations that have been
set on producing wheat straws. Therefore, Mr. Robert would make a claim under promissory
estoppel stating that composters should stay true to their word and the promise they made to Mr.
Robert as he relied on the promise and bought machinery to produce what straws for the two
seasons. Promissory estoppel states is a doctrine under estoppel that provides if a party to the
contract changes his or her position either by acting or by forbearing from acting in reliance upon a
complimentary promise, then that party can enforce the promise even though the essential elements
of a contract are

The Difference Between Common Intention Constructive...
The difference between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has been
described as 'illusory' (Hayton). Do you agree with this statement? Consider how the case law has
developed and give reasons for your answer.
In his article 'Equitable Rights of Cohabitees' Hayton suggested that the distinction between
common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has, over time, come to be but
illusory and goes on further to propose that since the general direction of the development of the law
has been to embrace the principle of preventing and remedying unconscionable conduct regardless
of whether the claim brought before them was originally brought under the concept of a constructive
trust or proprietary ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a "legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying
another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in
that property to its detriment". Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in
itself but a tool to raise "estoppel equity", on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the
type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common
intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of
an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential
detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be
a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the
part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however,
appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive
trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the
defendant's land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal
detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

Legitimate Expectation
Legitimate expectation of body makes people in general more likely than received no confirmation
or made some kind of representation such as it would take after a specific agreement or allow the
individual a specific advantage. In this respect, the convention of legitimate expectations resembles
the regulation of estoppel a well–known in private law. As stated in the last principle, the meeting
made a portrait of this law is certainly prevented from returning on its promise if the other party has
negatively depended on it. However, there are still essential contrasts:
Lord Woolf distinguished three levels of protection of legitimate expectation. Firstly the court can
choose the general specialized population is only necessary for the shoulder ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Environment Agency suggest that ultra vires expectations are not legitimate. However interestingly
the ECHR could protect the expectations relating to property, although if representation is within the
powers of the agency but outside the authority of the official that is where complexity increases (e.g.
Flanagan). The arguments in the area of unlawful representations revolve around legality and not to
allow authorities to enlarge their problem, however the complication that arises here is that the
individual may not know of unlawfulness, expectation or detriment may be just the same. It has
been argued that the strictness in the ratio is unfair. In my perspective some balancing or
compensation would have been a more favorable

L ' Estrange V. Graucob Ltd
In every free market economy individuals are allowed to autonomously enter into contracts and for
contracting parties to make their own decisions about the types of contract they enter into and the
terms on which they will contract (Paterson, 2009). A definition by Hall (1997) highlights that a
contract is an exchange of promises carried through by a process of offer and acceptance with the
intention of creating a legally binding deal, in which the English case of L' Estrange v F Graucob
Ltd it has been asserted that when a person signs a contractual documents they are bound by all its
terms. In the given case study several issues arise as the conduct of the other party (Mr Walter) is
contrary to the signed terms of the contract; non–compliance with Clause 2 of the contract and
fraudulent or falsified financial statements by Mr Walter. In the start of our argument it is important
to highlight that Mr Casper prior to signing the contract assured Mr Walter, who had thought of not
signing the contract if his store would be affected, that when it comes to his Westbrook Liquor Store
the restraint of trade clause 2 will be ignored hence Mr Walter continued to sign the contract with
clause 2 still limiting business of similar nature by his family. That aspect of the clause remained
clear, waiver is given to his own Liquor store only. Hence, his actions breach the provisions of the
restraint clause when he purchases his son a business of similar nature within a 5km radius from the

What Law Applies Is There A Binding Contract?
Question 1: Introduction: Emily agreed to work in her mother, Margaret's antique store when she
was 16 and in return she would receive any unsold dolls. However, later Margaret decided to give
the unsold stock to charity. Assume that Emily acted on Margaret's original representation. In order
to advise Emily it is necessary to evaluate the key facts, and then determine if a contract exists and
whether Emily could enforce the promise relying on promissory estoppel. The next step would be to
consider what law applies to the facts and apply the law to the facts. a)Is there a legally binding
contract? It is essential to determine if a legally binding contract exists. There are several elements
required to constitute a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As a result, the agreement did not constitute a legal contract because they did not intend, at the time
it was made, to make a legally binding arrangement. It was only an ordinary domestic arrangement.
On the other hand, Emily did not have the ability to make a contract. The facts indicate that there
was not a legally binding contract between Emily and Margaret. b)Can Emily enforce the promise
by way of a promissory estoppel? The doctrine of promissory estoppel was established from High
Trees Case[3], which allows a promise to be enforced by preventing the promisor from going back
on their word, where situations would be inequitable or unconscionable[4], even if a legal contract
does not exist. It is also known as equitable estoppel[5]. However, according to Austotel Pty Ltd v
Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd[6], promissory estoppel may not apply in large commercial transactions.
There are three different models of promissory estoppel applied in Australian law since Walton v
Maher[7], including the legal relationship model, the restraint on rights model and the independent
source of rights model[8]. In order to determine whether or not Emily could enforce the promise on
the basis of promissory estoppel, the six–point test established by Walton v Maher[9] must be
satisfied. Firstly, the promisee assumes the existence of a particular legal relationship. Secondly, the
promisor is

Ken Would Argue Promissory Estoppel As His Defense
Ken would argue promissory estoppel as his defense. Promissory estoppel is applicable because of
the following three reasons. Firstly, there is a pre–existing relationship between the parties based on
their involvement with the signed lease for the property located in the Annex District of Toronto.
Secondly, one party gratuitously promises to release another from legal duties owed to him. Amber
had agreed to terminate the lease early and negotiate on a settlement price. Lastly, the other party, in
reliance on the gratuitous promise alters the course of conduct so as to suffer damage if the promise
was broken. Due to Amber's gratuitous promise, Ken looked and signed a new lease for office space.
He relied and altered his conduct based on Amber's statement of fact that he would be able to end
the contract early. On the other hand, Amber would refute Ken's defense by arguing that promissory
estoppel should not be applied to this case. Amber made a gratuitous promise that was not a certain
statement of fact. She did not unequivocally tell Ken that she would release him of his legal
obligation with a low settlement price. Her promise was one of future conduct because she only
agreed to consider ending the lease and negotiate a settlement price. Evidently, the amount that is
deemed reasonable by both parties is obviously different. Ken's reliance on Amber's gratuitous
promise was not the cause of injury. Although Amber had agreed to think about terminating the
lease, Ken

Case Of Collier V P & MJ Wright
Case of Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd is basically associated with English Contract Law,
linking to doctrine of promissory estoppel as well as consideration in reference to "alteration
promises". In the specific case, Mr Collier was among the three different partners of a property
designer. They had agreed to an order of court in terms of paying Wright Ltd an amount of £46,000
in instalments on monthly basis of around £600, and were collectively liable. However, since 1999
monthly instalment had gone down to almost £200. Additionally, next year Mr Collier has a meeting
with Wright Ltd in which identified that he is liable for paying an amount of £15,600 rather
responsible to make payments jointly. It is due to the reason that other two property partners became
bankrupt in next four years. In ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In reference to the case examination of Arden LJ held in course of Foakes v Beer, but critically
referring to the efficient dictum in High Trees of Denning J, represented that promissory estoppel
can effectively help Mr Collier to deal with specific situation. In aspect in which he assured that he
is liable to make payment of his specific debt, he mainly relied upon assurance by effectively
making his part of payments, in specific course Wright Ltd is mainly resoling from the specific
promise that represents "would of itself be inequitable". David Uff who was mainly representing
Collier sought to determine third specific exception to case of Pinnel as submitted that, where the
specific debtor tends to agree is representation to pay his part of a jointly liable debt as well as came
across severally liable for the particular part, in this aspect both the parties have significantly entered
into a specific contract or binding for good representation that the liability of debtor for paying left
over joint debt reflects to be discharged effectively .

Estoppel Certificate In Real Bond Analysis
Estoppel, to the non–started, sounds more like the most current toy in the Pentagon's immeasurable
cluster of mystery weaponry and combat hardware, something that has a place more to Area 51 than
the land world, or maybe the most recent outrage to pervade Capitol Hill. "CIA's Probe Leak: The
New Martin Lochheed F–22 Supersonic Estoppel!", one may imagine perusing one day in the front
page of USA Today. Be that as it may, perusers of my Articles know not
In Real Estate, an "Estoppel Certificate" is an archive marked by the Seller, under vow, affirming the
representations made by the Seller in the Contract of Purchase and Sale. The purposes behind the
Buyer to ask for an Estoppel Certificate are twofold. In the first place, to affirm the Seller's
representations as expressed above and, also, to ban and keep the Seller from later on declaring a
truth, that is conflicting with the terms of the Contract.
Case in point, when obtaining an investment property – whether a house or a condo building – a
financial specialist might need to embed the accompanying two conditions point of reference
('subject to' statements). The first may read:
"Subject to the Buyer by ( embed date ) inspecting and affirming the Residential Tenancy
Agreement(s) in a matter of seconds essentially and covering the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Disappointment by the Seller to give such Estoppel Certificate in the previously stated time period
will render this Contract invalid and void, and all store monies until then paid by Buyer will be
discounted to Buyer forthwith with interest collected consequently, if any there

The Doctrine Of Promissory Estoppel
Another aspect we must consider is the part payment of debt in order to understand how the doctrine
of promissory estoppel can be used to aid a debtor. The general rule regarding part payment of debt,
at common law, is that it is not good consideration to pay a lesser sum. If the debtor does not pay the
creditor all that he owns, the debtor has an obligation to pay the full amount. The general rule was
established in the Pinnel's case where paying a lesser sum does not form a binding contract as there
was no fresh consideration. However, within the part payment rule, there are some exceptions. The
main exception which we will be focusing on is the equity exception involving the doctrine of
promissory estoppel, where the promise to pay a lesser sum is binding even if there is no
consideration.
As mentioned above the principle of promissory estoppel was introduced first in the Hughes v
Metropolitan Railway. In this case Hughes had rented a property, which he owns, to the
Metropolitan Railway Company. The tenants therefore had a six month notice to fix any repairs.
However during this notice period negotiations about buying the building from Hughes took place.
At the end of the six months not all of the repairs were carried out and the tenants were sued for
breach of contract. "...that if parties who have entered into definite and distinct terms involving
certain legal results ...afterwards by their own act or with their own consent enter upon a course of
negotiation which has the

Promissory Estoppel Case Study
Defendant is entitled to summary judgment for the simple reason that at–will employers are
generally are immune from liability in lawsuits brought by at–will employees, and Plaintiff cannot,
as a matter of law, succeed on the element of detrimental reliance necessary to support a claim of
promissory estoppel. More specifically, Plaintiff's employment agreement contained no explicit
period of service, no clear limit on the employer's freedom of action and thus, allowed either party
to terminate the relationship at any time or for any reason. During that time, Plaintiff unreasonably
acted in reliance on a good faith assumption despite the absence of any clearly defined limitations,
obligations or evidence demonstrating a modification to this ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Plaintiff contends the acts taken in reliance on the Defendant's promise was the selling of his home
in Alabama and his relocation to Houston, however, this is insufficient because he has presented no
such evidence that, but for the employment offer, these acts would have ceased to occur. English,
660 S.W.2d at 524 (finding no promissory estoppel when plaintiff could not show that he would not
have taken his detrimental actions if defendant had not made promise). Rather, Plaintiff admitted his
significant need to move to Houston, to allow him the ability to care for his ailing mother, evidenced
by his further admission of seeking employment with any company that would make this relocation
possible. Exhibit C. Moreover, allowing recovery in this context does not support the purpose of
promissory estoppel; preventing unjust enrichment. Rather, permitting recovery results in an
illogical situation where an employee maintains no remedy if fired sometime after commencing
work, but preserves the right a remedy in the event the employer refuses to allow him to commence
work at all. Collins, 871 S.W.2d at 937. Accordingly, this claim of promissory estoppel is
impractical under these circumstances and should not be granted as a matter of

Geosource Case Study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Geosource Case Study

Similar to Geosource Case Study (9)

More from Renee Wardowski

More from Renee Wardowski (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Geosource Case Study