The issue placed before their Lordships concerned whether Beer was entitled to the interest, after having agreed to forego the same. The doctrine of consideration is seen as a means of distinguishing between fair and unfair transaction, which is thought to ensure that it enhances the economic efficiency.
However, less people wanted to live in the flat because of the WWII.
Thirdly, it is criticized, as it will only produce ridiculous results if the promisor and promisee are left to put their own values on things, as consideration can be anything.
Some legal critics contended that although there was a necessity for consideration to create a contract, it was illogical to insist upon the provision of consideration with regard to the discharge of a contract.
Accordingly, Beer and Foakes signed an agreement to that effect. Consideration is the essential that enters a party into a contract. That is why the promisor can go back on their promises at that time. Cole had to pay the outstanding sum to Pinnel was because there was no consideration for Pinnel to forgone the money.
The reason behind this was that Cole had repaid only? List of References Care, J. As such, this issue is dealt with by the doctrine of precedent. It is promissory estoppel. It can be either in written or in oral form. Nevertheless, in Central London Property Trust v.
John Weston Foakes v. However, the court refused to countenance this contention, because it would rescind the rule reaffirmed by the Foakes v. Therefore, Foakes agreed to let Beer to pay back his debt by installment. Therefore, promissory estoppel can be used as a shield as well as a sword, too.
It might be an advantage to High Trees if the rental that they need to pay to the Central London was halved but the flats they sublet to others was fully occupied. However, it had been used for to years until Dening J developed the promissory estoppel. This benefits the creditors, because they are very much likely to receive a greater amount than what they would have received if the debtor had been declared bankrupt Owens, In this case, Beer had been granted a judgement in her favour against Foakes, whereby she was to receive around?
If there is no good consideration for the promisor to keep his promise to promisee, he needs no to keep the promise. The judgment at that time only concerned the past, present intention and the consideration that can only be measured by dollar and beneficial to the promisor.
A lot of cases were judged unfairly under this rule.Promissory estoppel is an equitable remedy that prevents a party from ‘going-back on’ or rescinding a promise. Clearly the concept is not simple as just preventing the rescission of a promise. How does promissory estoppel operate? In this essay I will attempt to give explanations on the “The Rule Of Pinnel’s Case”, promissory estoppel, and how it impacted upon the doctrine of consideration.
There was a pro and con between “The Rule Of Pinnel’s Case” and doctrine of consideration.
Promissory estoppel differs from common law estoppel because it has less strict requirements and it may arise from promise of future conduct or intention.
Promissory estoppel is traceable to Hughes V. Metropolitan Railway ()2 App Case Essay On Promissory Estoppel To begin with, the case as regards Richard and Ernie is related to the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, which is derived from Equity.
According to this doctrine, if one party to the contract (promisor) makes a promise which the other party to the contract (promisee) acts upon, the promisor is 5/5(1).
i) The cases of Pinnel’s Case ((), 5 Co Rep a) and Foakes v Beer ([–85] All ER Rep ) were ‘applied’. Explain what is meant by the legal term.
Synopsis: This essay examines the rule knows as The Rule in Pinnel's Case and how it impacted upon the doctrine of consideration. It also examines the problems arising from the Rule in Pinnel's Case, the subsequent exceptions that were developed to circumvent the rule and in detail the most important exception of them; Promissory estoppel and .Download