Course Code & Course Name: LLAW1013 Legal Research and Writing I
Research Title (if applicable): N/A Word Count (if applicable): 1500
INTRODUCTION
This commentary considers a decision made in the English Court of Appeal, Baird Textile Holdings v Marks and Spencer plc [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 737. The Court held that a contract could not be implied by conduct and the alleged contractual obligations were too uncertain to be upheld. More importantly, the case upholds the orthodox view that estoppel cannot be a cause of action.
This decision is significant after the leading decision of Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7 in Australia, which held estoppel an actionable…show more content… Adhering to the traditional stance of English law in estoppel and citing Denning LJ in Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 , Sir Morritt held that estoppel could not create a cause of action with the exception of proprietary and equitable estoppel. But Combe was decided in 1951, 37 years before Waltons Stores which proposed effective limitations in remedies to expand the scope without compromising the doctrine of consideration . In light of rising alternatives, the Court should, within all reasonableness of law, attempt to distinguish the current case from its precedents. I am content to think that the current requirements of promissory estoppel: a clear promise, reliance leading to an irreversible change of position, inequity to resile and its suspensory nature is sufficient to check the enactment of gratuitous
