CONTRACT LAW – LECTURE 4 Promissory estoppel Is about the enforceability of all alteration promises (promises to pay more and promises to accept less) and by contrast estoppels does not apply to promises about the formation of initial contracts Ex. If a creditor promises to accept a smaller sum in full settlement intending the debtor to rely on that promise‚ and the debtor does rely on it‚ the debtor may have a defence of promissory estoppels when sued for the balance by the creditor. The promise
Premium Common law Contract
(although in some instances the courts seem to go to some lengths to invent consideration eg Ward v Byham‚ Williams v Roffey Bros) equity will‚ in some instances‚ uphold promises which are not supported by consideration through the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Rules of consideration There are various rules governing the law of consideration: 1. The consideration must not be past. 2. The consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. 3. The consideration must move from the promisee. 4. An
Premium Consideration Common law Law
modern doctrine of promissory estoppel. Promissory estapol prevents a party from breaking a promise without consideration. It is defence equity‚ and could only be relied upon defensively as a shield not a sword‚ High Trees 1947. A new Australian view of promissory estoppel was developed in 1988 from the Walton’s v Maher case. The pre-existing agreement was the lease agreement and the tenant was defending the action to recover back rent. It was founded that a promissory estoppel action could also be used
Premium Contract
£8-10s-0d but paid £5-2s-2d at an earlier date at Pinnel’s request‚ claiming that his earlier payment of the lesser sum discharged him of paying the full debt. However it was held that part-payment in itself was not consideration. There are exceptions to the rule where consideration may be provided being if the being if the creditor agrees to accept earlier payment of a lesser sum‚ if the payment is made in a different form or if the payment is made in a different place. This rule in Pinnel’s
Premium Contract
CASE TOPIC AREA RESULTING LAW [CASE DETAILS] "Whitely v Chapel " "Interpretation of Statute " "literal rule - words given dict’ meaning [voted under dead person’s name. Cannot impersonate a dead person] " "Re Sigsworth " "Interpretation of Statute " golden rule - above disregarded if absurd/repugnant situation [son due to inherit from his mother after murdering her] "DPP vs Bull / Corkery v Carpenter " "Interpretation of Statute " "mischief rule - interpret for intended effect [law referrign
Premium Contract Tort Contract law
particular problem in building or repairing contracts because the court lacks the technical expertise‚ means‚ or agencies to learn exactly what task the contractor is performing or whether she is performing them properly. There are‚ however‚ certain exceptions to this rule. If the plans for the building are clearly defined‚ or if there has been sufficient partial performance so that supervision of the remainder is not difficult; the court might grant specific performance for its completion. Masterpiece
Premium Contract Contract law
of the doctrine‚ for present purposes‚ is its provision for the admissibility of statements relating to the performance‚ occurrence or existence of some act‚ event or state of affairs which is in issue. Such statements may be received by way of exception to the hearsay rule. Res Gestae forms part of hearsay. R V. BEDINGFIELD [1879] Vol. 14 Cox C.C. 341 A girl was living with her boyfriend until the relationship turned sour. The boyfriend allegedly cut her throat. She managed to run out
Premium Evidence law Jury
Employment-at-Will Exceptions: Overview of Associated Terms and Phrases The following descriptions of terms and phrases from the Employment-at-Will multimedia are provided for further review and study. For more information on each term or phrase‚ refer to the pages provided from the Employment Law for Business text. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing In an employment relationship‚ this breach may occur if the parties have entered into an employment contract. In a
Premium Employment
because his landlord cannot enforce the pet clause of the lease based on the given facts. On one hand‚ the bilateral mistake in the contract invalidates the lease‚ and therefore the pet clause is no longer enforceable. Also‚ the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be used to help Rafi not only keep his dog in the apartment but also recover the boarding fee from his landlord‚ as he relies on the landlord’s promise. There is a bilateral mistake in the contract‚ and therefore the contract is invalid
Premium Contract Contract law
Contracts Exam Notes Monika Petrusevska + Kieran Paskin 2012 The 17th day of the 6th month in the 2013th year IS THERE AN AGREEMENT (Satisfy the three elements) Offer and acceptance between more than 2 parties - Clarke v Dunraven May be necessary to look at whole course of dealings - Empirnall Holdings v Machon Was there an offer? – Step 1: Define + State what type of contract Expression to another of willingness to be legally bound by terms – Australian Woollen Mills v Commonwealth
Premium Contract