Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
24 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Part payment of debt is... |
not good consideration. Pinnel's case also |
|
|
Foakes v Beer |
Dr Foakes - pay owed in instalments said Mrs Beer. Then she tried to claim the interest. Their agreement made no reference to this. Therefore Foakes said wouldn't pay it. Beer claimed there was no consideration therefore non binding. House of Lords - she wins. No consideration. 'naked attempt to usurp the rule in Pinnel's Case' |
|
|
Likened to... |
Williams v Roffey. Similar in that she benefited (F v B) in that he paid at all. The difference - Mrs Beer was accepting less, rather than paying more. |
|
|
Case showing why Williams v Roffey shouldn't apply to Foakes v Beer like situations. (obiter) |
Re Selectmove Ltd: Owed Inland Revenue. Can we pay in instalments. Let me check - never got back to them. They started paying in instalments. Got hit with a fine. Court said there was no contract, no consideration as above. Obiter: Only Parliament or H of L can extend the rule in WvR to other situations. |
|
|
Common Law Exceptions |
- different chattel
- part payment of debt before due date can be good consideration - where payment of a lesser sum discharges obligation to pay greater sum. - Payment of lesser sum by 3rd party |
|
|
Pinnel's Case |
P owed Cole C lost on technical grounds but would've won because was paid early = consideration "There will be good consideration for a promise to accept less if debtor provides 'fresh' consideration." n.b. sufficient not adequate - Chappell v Nestle affirmed: |
|
|
Sibree v Tripp |
Promisory note = new consideration. Doing something not already bound to do. |
|
|
Builders accepted less. |
D&C Builders v Rees Builder accepted less Defendant said promissory estoppel meant they couldn't get the rest. Failed - she had abused their financial difficulties to force them to accept less. Must come into equity with clean hands etc... |
|
|
Payment of a lesser sum by a third party |
Where a 3rd party enters into agreement with the creditor where creditor accepts lesser sum in full satisfaction of debtor's obligation then creditor can't claim the rest. Case: |
|
|
Welby v Drake |
Defendant's son owed 18 quid. Had said would pay 9 and call it quits. Plaintiff still sued. Can be see as a separate contract, one of the terms being extinguishing debt. Would also be fraud to try and claim - Hirachand Punamchand v Temple |
|
|
Promissory Estoppel = |
Equitable exception to rule that part payment doesn't = discharge of debt case: |
|
|
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co |
Tenant under obligation to keep premises in good repair. Was given six months to repair. Negotiations as to buying. L said don't have to repair during negotiations. Negotiations broke down. 6 months up L used failure to do repairs as a breach = forfeiture of lease. HofL: Landlord's conduct = implied promise wouldn't enforce forfeiture and tenant was, by not doing the repairs, relying on the promise. Landlord estopped from asserting right. another case: |
|
|
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd |
Landlord (plaintiff) lent flats on 99 year lease. (1937) War! 1939. Only 1/3 let and difficult to pay rent. L reduced rent, no one said for how long or agreed any details. 1945 all flats let, Landlord requested full rent. Defendant said reduction was for whole 99 years. Or at least to 1945. Ratio - could claim from 1945 (Denning) - the end of the reason for the promise. The promise could be enforced DESPITE lack of consideration. Obiter - wouldn't have been able to claim pre-1945. Denning said: |
|
|
It is an equitable principle where |
"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." Seems to conflict with Foakes v Beer - that part payment = consideration. |
|
|
Elements of Promissory Estoppel |
1. A shield, not a sword 2. A clear and unequivocal promise 3. Promisee must have altered their position |
|
|
1. Shield, not a sword |
Combe v Combe: 100 quid a year to wife. Hubby didn't pay. On appeal Hubby said - she can't bring an action based on promissory estoppel. Here husband had agreed to give wife money, not to accept less from her. She had given him no consideration = no contract. |
|
|
2. A clear and unequivocal promise |
"that existing legal rights won't be fully enforced". case: |
|
|
Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co |
Contract - Nigerian pounds in Lagos. Buyers asked if could pay sterling. Agreed. Sterling dropped. Buyers said it was pound for Nigerian pound and that sellers letter agreeing to this = a variation and therefore sellers couldn't go back on it. Court - letter wasn't clear enough to = variation or found an estoppel. |
|
|
Promisee must have altered their position |
'relied on the promise/representation' case |
|
|
Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) |
Lorries. Hire Purchase Owners said it's okay to withhold instalments as long as they are out of service. Sued. Court said defendant hadn't altered position therefore no estoppel (presumably they were already/would have been out of service anyway). |
|
|
Altered position - the promise doesn't... |
have to be the ONLY reason for change, but has to INFLUENCE it in some way. Up to promisor to show the change in conduct WASN'T based on promise. (Collier v P & MJ Wright) |
|
|
Promisee doesn't have to act to his detriment but it helps: |
Alan (WJ) & Co v El Nasr Export & Import Co. |
|
|
Inequitable for Promisor to Go Back on his Promise |
Not in every case though - Lord Goff in 'The Post Chaser' - it depends on the case. e.g. D & C Builders v Rees - promisee = inequitable and might also be duress. |
|
|
Does PE Suspend or Extinguish Rights? |
Estoppel = suspensory. Barring exceptional cases where it's impossible for promisee to resume position. Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria): promisor can resile on giving reasonable (not necessarily formal) notice, giving promisee reasonable opportunity of resuming his position. Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electrical Co: Individual payments = difficult to go back on. Different from instalments for obvious reasons. |
