The Doctrine Of Promissory Estoppel

Introduction

• This essay will explore the doctrine of promissory estoppel and further allay the doubts that have been expressed by about the scope of doctrine in the decisions of the highest court.
• Promissory estoppel is the legal principle that promises are enforceable by law even in those instances when they are made with no formal consideration when promisors have made promises to promises who then rely on those promises to their subsequent detriment.

• In line with contract law, there is a requirement that people receive consideration for the promises they make and agreements they get into.
• One valuable asset that is exchanged between two of the parties to a contract in the making of an agreement or a promise is legal consideration.

• The statement of Lord Cairns in the case of Hughes v Metropolitan Rly co (1877) forms the basis for the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
• In the case, a tenant had received a notice from his landlord Hughes back in October 1874, that the tenant, Metropolitan, was going to carry out repairs within a period of six months and failure to do so would lead to a forfeiture of the lease.
• The parties involved engaged in negotiations for the sale of the land began the month that followed but in December 1874 halted without any meaningful agreement. While the negotiations were still on course, Metropolitan failed to commence the repairs and six months after the issuing of the notice, an action was brought by Hughes for the repossession of the property.
• It was held by the House of Lords that the conduct of the landlord was an implied promise and that made the tenants to believing that during the negotiations, the repairs time limit had been suspended.
• As such, Hughes could in no way take advantage of the reliance of the tenant on the suspension. Lord Cairns in his ruling said that promises could only be held to be binding in those instances where parties renegading their promises to not enforce the exiting legal rights on the other involved party would not inequitable if the other party had acted fully relying on the promise.
• In the case, the application of promissory estoppel implied that under the lease, Hughes was not capable of enforcing his strict legal rights as the rights had been modified at the instance, he implied the suspension of such action.
• The House of Lords consequently suspended his right to have repairs on the premises even though they did not extinguish them.
• Within the timeline that had been adjusted, there was still a binding on Metropolitan to carry out the repairs and they were even given equitable relief against the lease`s forfeiture.

Conclusion

• In the attempts to maintain fairness and also ensure justice, courts are capable of enforcing promises even when consideration is absent and that is provided that such promises were relied on to a reasonable extent and the reliance on the promise led to the promise`s detriment.