Explain how the doctrine of consideration relates to the doctrine of promissory estoppel

Explain how the doctrine of consideration relates to the doctrine of promissory estoppel

To define promissory estoppel ? where, by words or conduct, a person makes an unambiguous representation as to his future conduct, intending the representation to be relied on and to affect the legal relations between the parties, and the representee alters his position in reliance on it, the representor will be unable to act inconsistently with the representation if by doing so the representee would be prejudiced?

Check your essay before you submit. See exactly what your professor sees.

See your AI and plagiarism results before your instructor does.Get the exact same report your professor uses. Trusted by 50,000+ students worldwide.

Get Plagiarism Report Humanize My Essay

Another perspective on promissory estoppel as defined by Lord Birkenhead in Maclaine v Gatty [1921] 1 AC 376, 386, in the following terms: where A has by his words or conduct justified B in believing that a certain state of facts exists, and B has acted upon such belief to his prejudice, A is not permitted to affirm against B that a different state of facts existed at the same time?

. Essentially what Lord Birkenhead was implying was A could not enforce a term of a contract and then sue B for a breach if A had promised B they would not enforce the term. …

(Poole, Casebook on Contract Law, 2012). However a contrasting case for this is ? Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd [1955] 1 WLR 761, House of Lords? (Burrows, 2007, p. 148) whereby it did extinguish rights , as they only ?promised? to suspend their right to compensation only pending a new agreement (Burrows, 2007, p. 150) which brings the debate right back to the defence of promissory estoppel as a use of an exception in consideration.

Promissory estoppel delivers a condition in which promises may be made legally binding even if there is no consideration which leads me onto my final component which is, promissory estoppel cannot act as a cause of action (McKendrick, 2013, p. 95).

This was demonstrated in the case of Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB (CA) (Poole, Casebook on Contract Law, 2012, p. 152) as famously said by Birkett LJ in the Combe v Combe case ? promissory estoppel can be ?used as a shield