Get premium membership and access questions with answers, video lessons as well as revision papers.

Citing relevant case law, discuss the doctrine of equitable estoppel, outlining the circumstances under which it arises.

      

Citing relevant case law, discuss the doctrine of equitable estoppel, outlining the
circumstances under which it arises.

  

Answers


Maurice
The doctrine of equitable estoppel was developed to mitigate the harshness of the common law
rule of consideration where a promisee had relied upon a promise and changed his legal position
to his detriment.

It is an equitable intervention. The doctrine often referred to as the rule in High trees case,
was explained by Lord Denning in Combe V. Combe as follows,” where parties have a legal
relationship and one of them by word of conduct makes a representation to the other
intended to affect their legal position and to be acted upon by the other, once the other has
relied upon it and changed his legal position, the maker cannot be heard to say that their
legal relations were different.

For the doctrine of promissory estoppel to apply, the following conditions must
exist:
(i) A legal relationship between the parties.

(ii) A representation by word or conduct intended to be relied upon.

(iii) Reliance upon the representation.

(iv) Change in legal position as a result of the reliance.

(v) It would be unfair for the maker to act otherwise.

In Central London Property Trust Ltd V. High Trees House Ltd: the plaintiff leased a block
of flats to the defendant for 99 yeas at a ground rent of f2,500. The transaction took effect
in 1937. However, by the time the second world ward started most of the flats were
unoccupied and the defendant could not make enough to pay the agreed rent. However,
after some discussion the plaintiff agreed in writing to accept half of the rent as long as the
conditions of war persisted. Between 1940 and 1945 the defendant paid half the rent. By
1945, all the flats were occupied but the defendant continued paying half the rent. The
plaintiff sued for orders that the defendant pay:
(a) The full rent.

(b) All the arrears.

The court held that whereas it was fair for the defendant to pay the full rent it was unfair for
the plaintiff to insist on the arrears. As they had made a representation which the defendant
relied upon. They were estopped from insisting on the arrears.

A similar holding was made in Century Automobiles Ltd V. Hutchings Biemer Ltd.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is defensive not offensive. It can only be used as a
shield not as a sword.

This doctrine qualifies the common law rule of consideration. It enables a person who has
not provided consideration to a promise to enforce it if he has relied upon it and changed his legal position to his detriment.
maurice.mutuku answered the question on April 27, 2018 at 06:06


Next: What are the advantages of multiparty system?
Previous: Muthoga entered into a five year lease agreement for office premises with Njenga. After the end of the lease period, the parties agreed that Njenga would...

View More CPA Commercial Law Questions and Answers | Return to Questions Index


Learn High School English on YouTube

Related Questions