Contract Law - Lecture 10 Promissory Estoppel - Requirements Promissory estoppel - the principle . Lord Denning established the doctrine of promissory estoppel- Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]- 'A promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its terms properly apply? • The promisor will be estopped from back on their promise . The plaintiffs were bound by their promise to accept half the rent for the war years and they will not be allowed to go back on that promise. Requirements Some key Requirements can be identified: 1. There must be an existing legal relationship. 2. The doctrine can only be used as a 'shield' and not as a 'sword'. 3. A clear and unequivocal representation must have been made. 4. There must have been reliance on the promise. 5. It must be inequitable to go back on the promise 6. The doctrine only suspends rights and original terms can be revived. Existing legal relationship . The doctrine cannot exist in a vacuum. . There has to be an existing legal relationship which has been varied and the variation is then allowed by the doctrine - if you have an existing contractual relationship and then the terms are varied then you can go to the doctrine for support · High Trees Case- variation of existing contractual obligations between landlord and tenant. · Combe v Combe [1951] Combe v Combe · Husband and wife were getting divorced. · Husband agreed to pay wife £100 per annum between decree nisi and decree absolute. · Husband never paid the money. · After 7 years, wife (now ex) sued to enforce his promise. · Trial judge held that promissory estoppel could apply. . C of A overturned that decision, Lord Denning stated that consideration remained a cardinal necessity of the formation of a contract, but not of its modification or discharge. . There was no contract upon which the relationship was based, the marriage was already dissolved 'Shield' and not 'Sword' . The doctrine of promissory estoppel may not usually form the basis of a cause of action
· People normally call on the doctrine to protect themselves (defending themselves) not as an attack . Normally not available in the way of forming a contract . It would generally be available to be used as a defence. . This is correlated to the fact that the doctrine is used in modifying existing relationships and not in the creation/formation of new relationships. · Combe v Combe . Note: this does not mean the doctrine can only be used by a defendant and never by a claimant. So, it can be used by a claimant as well as by a defendant, if it is applicable - claimant might bring a course of action and rely on doctrine but will still only be a defence A clear and unequivocal representation · An ambiguous statement cannot form the basis