Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
He stated the estoppel could only be used as a "shield" and not a "sword". In the High Trees case, there was an underlying cause of action outside the promise. Here, promissory estoppel created the cause of action where there was none. In this case, the court could not find any consideration for the promise to pay maintenance.
Only proprietary estoppel can create a cause of action in English law, though the other two can act in support of a cause of action or a reply to a defence. Under American jurisprudence, equitable estoppel is available only as a defence, while promissory estoppel can be used as the basis of a cause of action.
It is also said that equitable estoppel lies in tort, while promissory estoppel lies in contract. The major distinction between equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel is that the former is available only as a defense, while promissory estoppel can be used as the basis of a cause of action for damages. —
An Appellate Division, First Department panel rejected the reliance-based argument of promissory estoppel by the plaintiff, indicating that he would not suffer an unfair injury if the statute of ...
Promissory estoppel is a separate cause of action to breach of contract, requiring separate elements to be shown. It has the effect that in many contract like situations, the requirement of consideration need not be present. [5] The elements of promissory estoppel are: an express or implied promise;
Based upon recent case pronouncements by both New York’s highest court and federal courts, the doctrine of promissory estoppel should be invoked with selectivity, particularly when used to ...
This was cited in Spencer, Bower and Turner on estoppel by Representation, Second Edition (1966) at pages 279 to 282. The basis of this proprietary estoppel - as indeed of promissory estoppel - is the interposition of equity. Equity comes in, true to form, to mitigate the rigours of strict law. The early cases did not speak of it as "estoppel".
It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the contract law of England and Wales. However, the most significant part of the judgment is obiter dictum as it relates to hypothetical facts; that is, the landlord did not seek repayment of the full wartime rent. Denning J held estoppel to be applicable if