Which case suggested equitable estoppell may apply despite the absence of consideration, in certain circumstances involving negotiations?
What case was this extended to (in a ground it was not intended to operate) and what were the facts of this case?
What did Denning note when coming to his conclusion in relation to an influence?
Name the 2 principle criticisms of High Trees and Lord Dennings conclusions (obiter)?
Which case was the existence of the doctrine questioned?
Whats the first requirement for promissory estoppel?
What case represents that there should be no ambiguity and it needs to be more than just a bare assurance?
Which case limits it to simply a cause of action and a "shield not a sword" - the facts were:
Divorce proceedings the husband promised to pay a certain sum to wife in maintenance who gave no consideration. Tried to enforce on promissory estoppel.. CA refused.divorce proceedings the husband promised to pay a certain sum to wife in maintenance who gave no consideration. Tried to enforce on promissory estoppel.. CA refused.
What type of promises Baird Textiles v Marks and Spencers confirm promissory estoppel to be explicitly confined to?
What case sets out that Promissory Estoppel was not intended to replace consideration?
In both cases of Hughes v Metropolitan, High Trees and Collier v Wright, promissory estoppel was held to apply where promisee had ------- -------- arising from the promise, whereas the traditional view of reliance is that the promissee must suffer ------- on their behalf.
"Detriment" was held not to have the same meaning under which case? Denning seemed to imply that depravation of benefit was enough, which does nothing to contribute to sense of justice.
Which case construed promissory estoppel to be applied merely on the basis of inequity and whether actions/inactions give rise to equity (reliance)?
What is a probable fear that equity might cause between relationships of creditor and debtors?
Which case demonstrates this, and involves a wife influencing a creditor to accept less?
What other cases was this reasoning applied?
Which case renders (factual benefit) approach to promissory estoppel makes High Trees context largely redundant? And which case reinstates that it is limited to promises to pay more?
The doctrine only operates to ------- rights and it may therefore be possible to go back on promise in the ------------ despite operation
Which case was it suggested that reasonable notice may be a better principle, in respect of re-enforcing strict rights on the promisee? In this case it was decided that based on compensation for metals during the war, the claimants would have been entitled to compensation had they given reasonable notice for the termination of rights.
Reasonable notices appears to generate more -------- and less ------ than a rule where suspended rights might automatically come to an end.
Due to the operation being suspensory, it means that case involving single debt obligations simply gives claimaint more ----- -- pay balance.
It mell well be that periodic payments strict rights available during suspensory are not -------
Leading case of High Trees supports this in respect of periodic payments of rent, Lord Denning in Brikom v Carr states that it is ------- for a promisor to go back on rights in this position.
Which australian case shows implications of where promissory estoppel could apply? The case involved demolition of a building and reliance on an alleged promise of agreement (by conduct). The fact that the appelant did not state this until after work was done made it inequitable.
Why was the case controversial? What restrictions that normally apply did not?