PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

1

• PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
• Exception to the necessity for providing that
  there was consideration for a contract
• Fridman once a man has told a lie he cannot
  afterwards tell the truth if, in the meantime,
  the innocent victim of the lie has acted on it on
  sufficient manner
• If one party makes a false representation as to
  present or past fact upon which the other party
  relies to his detriment, the representation
  cannot afterwards repudiate the representation
  and allege the true facts (Jorden v. Money (1854)
  5 H.L. Cas. 185 (H.L.)
• Modern concept of promissory estoppel established
  by House of Lords in Hughes v. Metro Railway Co
  (1877) 2 App. Cas. 439 (H.L.))
• Lord Denning developed the modern law of
  promissory estoppel in Central London Property
  Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. 1947 K.B.
  10 indicating that the following elements are
  required to found a promissory estoppel
• a clear and unequivocal promise or representation
  as to future conduct which indicates that the
  promisor will not enforce all his rights under
  the existing contract with the promisee
• which the promisee relies on
• and which it would be unconscionable or
  inequitable for the promisor to revert and insist
  upon his full contractual rights

2

• Essential features of promissory estoppel
• (Fridman)
• There must have been an existing legal
  relationship between the parties at the time the
  statement on which the estoppel is found was made
• There must be a clear promise or representation
  made by the party against whom the estoppel is
  raised (promisor), establishing her or his intent
  to be bound by what she or he has said
• There must have been reliance by the party
  raising the estoppel (promisee) upon the
  statement or conduct of the party against whom
  the estoppel is raised (promisor)
• An action of the party to whom the representation
  was made (promise) to her or his detriment
• The party to whom the representation was made
  (promisee) must have acted equitably