Defendant had trouble with lorries that he had was using on a hire-purchase basis from Plaintiff, and Plaintiff had said that he could delay payment while the lorries were being fixed by the Plaintiffs and not in active service.
When Plaintiff sued Defendant for overdue instalments owed from the point when the lorries were available for use again, Defendant claimed equitable estoppel, in that they had not been given reasonable notice that the lorries were available for use again.
Privy Council held that promissory estoppel (PE) applied where one party, in absence of consideration, agreed not to enforce his rights.
However there are 3 qualifications:
That the party claiming PE had altered his position;
That the promisor could revoke his promise once reasonable notice had been given;
The promise was only irrevocable where the promise couldn’t resume his former position.
In this case the position of Defendant had not been altered AND the lorries had been made available to him with reasonable notice.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
GDL Contract Law | Promissory Estoppel Notes (5 pages) |
Contract Law | Promissory Estoppel Notes (6 pages) |