7. Consideration and promissory estoppel - Law Trove
As will be argued, consideration, duress and promissory estoppel have distinct no pre-existing legal relationship between them; if estoppel were to work in this. Consideration or Promissory Estoppel Legally speaking, a contract is a legally binding agreement in law between at least two parties which. contract week consideration and promissory estoppel consideration something of reflect the intentions of the parties (ie, did they intend to create legal relations) +xpTtr/AID/Wpe6lXD2GsN38I1jTzy5VghP5y3EN9I6kNkMrA5cE8DeMj6gT+.
The Doctrine of Consideration The doctrine of consideration is defined by Sir Frederick Pollock as an act, or promise, of the price in which the other party is bought, and the entire agreement is then enforceable. The doctrine of consideration is important in all contracts, as it refers simply to an agreement that is legally enforceable. However, it is important to note that there have been significant modifications to the pre-existing doctrine of consideration.
The consideration previously included the following factors, which are no longer relevant in today's legal world: The consideration that is given for a promise is not adequate. The value of one promise is not equal to the value of the other.
As it stands, the court will not currently compare the estimated value of each promise made. The doctrine does not currently take the mutual promise of equal value into account. Promises make it difficult to perceive value or factual benefits. There remains a lot of debate as to whether or not the current doctrine of consideration is fair or outdated.
The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an alternative to the doctrine of consideration. It refers to a contract that cannot be withdrawn because one party acted on the other parties' promise. In most cases, one party was harmed or served injustice because of the broken promise that they relied on. The promissory estoppel acts as a legal shield against the other's claim, even though they did not give any consideration.
Sending of wrappers was therefore of great importance to Nestle.What is promissory estoppel?
Unrealistic to divorce the transactions. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn. Basically consideration will be sufficient but need not be adequate. D had killed a man and asked P to ride to London to get him a pardon.
Consideration Promissory Estoppel | Oxbridge Notes the United Kingdom
Upon return D said he would give him money, but then never did. E borrowed money to pay for sons education who promised to pay it back when came of age. Husband then promised to pay the money. E sued husband to make him pay. Husband was in no way connected with E when the money was expended, so he received no consideration.
A promise without consideration cannot be binding. PC Agreement made for sale of building in return for shares. So as to not upset the market it was agreed that P should not be able to sell some shares for a period.
P threatened not to carry out main contract unless indemnified against potential loss. Sub-contract made to keep P happy. Issue as to whether there was consideration for the indemnity contract. All three features are present in this case. A promise to perform, or the performance of a pre-existing contractual obligation can be valid consideration.
Court refused to adopt a rule to the effect that here there is a threat to repudiate there cannot be consideration as it would render the law too uncertain. Commercial pressure is not enough for a finding of duress. In determining whether there was coercion of the will such that there was no true consent it is material to enquire whether the person alleged to have been coerced protested; whether he had an alternative course of action open to him such as an adequate legal remedy; whether he was independently advised; whether he took steps to avoid it.
A contract may be void on the basis of economic duress only where it satisfies the above conditions. Manager of colliery applied for police protection for his mine during a strike. Police said that it would only do so if it were paid at a special rate by M for doing so.
Father offered mother money towards the maintenance of child so long as the child was well looked after and happy. Denning says has always thought that a promise to perform an existing duty, or performance of it, should be regarded as good consideration because it is a benefit to the person to whom it is given.
In this case thinks the fathers promise should be regarded as a unilateral contract. The ascertainment of a specified sum in lieu of the unascertained has always been held to be good consideration.
Doctrine of Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
A promise to perform a pre-existing duty can be good consideration so long as there is nothing in the transaction which is contrary to the public interest. In this case he gave her money to avoid the trouble and expense of coming to court notwithstanding that he would have had a defence. Also important is that she could have returned to the husband and if he had rejected her she would have been entitled to money from him.
Thus her right to maintenance had only ever been suspended rather than forfeited. Uncle agrees to pay in consideration of marriage for so long as their wage stayed below a certain amount.
Williams v Williams  1 WLR He argues that as a result of the combined effect of practical benefit and the rule that consideration must be sufficient but not adequate, the doctrine of consideration has been rendered 'otiose or redundant, at least for the most part Consideration still effectively gives a badge of enforceability to an agreement, even in its 'watered-down' form. Firstly, Treitel has argued that 'there is no doctrinal difficulty in holding that Even on the issue of whether mutual promises are good consideration for each other, it is argued that in English contract law, a person who make a commercial promise 'expects to have to perform it and is infact under considerable pressure to do so ' Secondly, whilst consideration has been stretched, 'it does not mean that' the rule that existing duty to a promisor does not constitute good consideration 'lacks substance17'.
Indeed the rule is still active today18, however the most important consideration here is how the stretching of the boundaries of consideration has allowed socially beneficial public policy judgments to be made. For example in Combe v Combe 19 one reason for the court's 'refusal to imply a request' was that 'the justice of the case [did] not require that it should be. However, given that in a transaction, property or services as usually 'transferred to those who value them most highly', it remains that the enforcement of bargains through consideration is consistent with the theory of welfare maximisation, as elaborated by Chen-Wishart21 and Richard Posner Thirdly, the supposed rules that limit the scope of consideration infact allow the doctrine flexibility in a different way; consideration provides for variation of contracts.
Taking the example of Williams v Roffey Bros. Consideration, therefore, maintains contracts and the essence of bargain and autonomy in order to allow humans to 'flourish' economically Cohen Readings in Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy [, Beard Books] 26 Gay Choon at par Fourthly, keeping the doctrine of consideration would undoubtedly be the 'most practical solution'.
Doctrine of Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
Even Phang, despite his argument against consideration in the case of Gay Choon, had to acknowledge this fact; that keeping consideration would enable courts and parties to use a 'range of legal options to achieve a just and fair result' in any case As will be argued, consideration, duress and promissory estoppel have distinct functions within contract law; it is not simply a good solution to do away with one in favour of another.
For example, duress provides a more 'refined control mechanism' for protecting a participant in a variation of a contract because it renders a contract voidable not void McKendrick concurs that duress and consideration 'cannot be collapsed into one' Similarly, if promissory estoppel were allowed to create a new cause of action in English contract law it would simply undermine consideration's efficacy. This situation will be analysed later. Keeping all three doctrines active and in-use whilst delineating between them — especially between promissory estoppel and consideration — reveals the truth that they complement each other and provide a structure to contract law allowing for the most just resolution of litigation.
Promissory estoppel does not provide a replacement of the doctrine of consideration. Promissory estoppel is an effective doctrine. It is well suited to modern commercial practice and has had new life breathed into it by the Australian case Waltons Stores, in which Phang argued that it could be used to found a cause of action. However there are two reasons why promissory estoppel would not perform the functions of consideration as effectively as the doctrine itself.
Firstly, promissory estoppel is merely a fledgling doctrine. This is borne out by the fact that the effect of estoppel is unclear, in sharp contrast to the effect of consideration.