Create one now! Already have an account? Log in now! JavaScript seem to be disabled in your browser. You must have JavaScript enabled in your browser to utilize the functionality of this website. Join over 1. Page 1. Save View my saved documents Submit similar document. Share this Facebook. Extracts from this document Introduction What is meant by the phrase "estoppel can act as a shield but not a sword"?
Middle After the war the plaintiff the landlord argued that the agreement reducing the rent was not supported by any consideration. Conclusion So in a way the waiver can be used to create the cause of action. The above preview is unformatted text. Found what you're looking for? Not the one?
Search for your essay title Related University Degree Contract Law essays Promissory Estoppel is a shield not a sword The definition of "sword" on the other hand is defined as being "Something that wounds or kills, a cause of death or destruction, a destroying agency; also, something used as a weapon of attack.
Promissory estoppel and consideration will come into existence, and he thus relied on this assumption to his detriment which came to the promisor's knowledge. Williams v. The buyer wanted to finance the purchase of the land by selling another property but due to some reasons, the sale of the other property could not be completed. When the buyers asked for some extra time for payment, their request was denied.
The seller suggested the buyer take a bridging loan. The balance amount was to be paid until the 10th of August. In this case, two pints have been brought up by the court. Firstly, to establish the doctrine of the Promissory Estoppel, any promise or representation, whether it is expressed or implied, should be made clear. Secondly, if there is reliance by the other party then it should be reasonable. It was further held that the Promissory Estoppel could only be used as a defence or a shield when the party who has made the representation is trying to change the terms and conditions of the promise which results in a detrimental effect on the interest of the other party.
Different laws of different nations have described the doctrine of the Promissory Estoppel through their own interpretation. Over these years, the scope of this doctrine has widened a lot. Although the ways of interpreting the doctrine could be different, every law has stated that this doctrine can be well described as the shield for the parties rather than their sword. It could be used as a shield for retrieving the past damage or as a sword against the future damages on the ground of the promised effect to the future, while unconscionable only affect the past detriment.
Although the doctrine of the Promissory Estoppel is not found to be properly described in the Acts, the judiciary has expanded the scope of this doctrine through the various judgments given in all these years. Especially, including the government within the scope of the application of this doctrine.
The evolution of the doctrine will never stop and its scope would widen in the future. LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:. Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Check your mailbox for the joining link. From Bhawna Agarwal: [email protected]. Sign in. Password recovery.
Forgot your password? Get help. Home Contract Law Promissory estoppel as a shield rather than a sword. Table of Contents. Sign in Contact us. Halsbury's Laws of England. Sign-in Help. Promissory estoppel: a shield, not a sword. Contract Volume 22 Commentary. This confirms that, whatever the effect of the trust and partnership language used in NEC3 and, by extension, other contracts may be, it will not override or displace the effect of other express terms the parties agree.
Overall, while Mears v Shoreline provides useful general guidance on the nature and scope of estoppel by convention, the decision also introduces new scope for argument in relation to both the:. Your email address will not be published. The party claiming the benefit of the convention must have relied on the common assumption, albeit that almost invariably both parties will have relied or acted on it or been influenced by it.
Estoppel by convention is to be used as a shield and not as a sword. The estoppel can come to end and will not apply to future dealings, once the common assumption is revealed to be erroneous.
0コメント