Promissory Estoppel In contracts that are not supported by deed, the only way promises made are enforceable are if they are supported by consideration. Promissory estoppel is relevant when there are variation of agreements. Typically the potential as to whether promissory estoppel will provide the basis for enforcing variation promises arises within the context of pay less cases. We have an agreement that has been formed with the right procedures. There was consideration at the time to make the original agreement binding. However, down the line one of the parties or both agree to vary their agreement. We are concerned with which modification promises are enforceable. Meaning of estoppel - "[I]f A represents to someone that a certain state of facts exists, and B relies on this, A cannot thereafter claim that a different state of affairs existed - he is estopped from doing so." - The law does not like people who make certain representations and then subsequently go back on them. - It is rooted in equity and equitable principles. It is fundamentally about fairness. It is not fair to make a representation to do X and then say you want to Y and the other person cannot do anything about it. Stops situations like this - There is doubt to the extent that promissory estoppel is still relevant after MWB v Rock. Here, the CA held that the practical benefit doctrine could extend beyond pay more cases and can also apply in pay less cases as a basis for establishing that fresh consideration was provided in pay less cases. This expansion of practical benefit, it is likely that territory previously occupied by promissory estoppel is being encroached by practical benefit doctrine. - Too many different principles in search for one problem - which promise is enforceable. Question is whether this is a satisfactory stage to be in Origins of Estoppel - One of the earliest manifestations of this principle is found in Lord Cairns judgement in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877). Under equitable principles within English law, we are not happy with having a situation in which promises are made by one party to the other and subsequently the promisor is withdrawing from the promises they have made. Lord Cairns argue that this is not the position that equitable principles will want to enable. If somebody has a certain
legal right and they are not going to assert those legal rights, then the law will not look at them favourable if they go back on that promise, they must honour their promise. Early limits on estoppel - The scope of estoppel was narrow at the start and its application was quite limited. The best illustration of this is in Jordan v Money (1854) - Facts - Mrs Jordan was owed a some of money from Money. She led Money to believe that she would not enforce the debt and forgo her rights in relation to the debt that Money owed her. In reliance of this promise