1. Introduction....................................................................................... 2
2. Historical Development.................................................................. 2 - 4
3. Types of Estoppel.............................................................................. 4 3.1 Common Law Estoppel………………………………………... 4 3.2 Equitable Estoppel……………………………………………… 4 3.3 Proprietary Estoppel……………………………………………. 5
3.4 Promissory Estoppel……………………………………………. 5
4. Conclusion…………………………………………………………........... 6
5. Reference............................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction
The normal bargain theory of contract as expressed in consideration …show more content…
During this period, the tenant railway companyproposed to Hughes the proprietor to purchase their leasehold interest. In the end, the negotiation was not successfully completed. As the six months had elapsed, the property owner sued the tenant for failure to carry out the repairs and tried to evict the company. Lord Cairns gave the lead judgment saying that he does not believe the property owner had took advantage of the tenant by negotiating with them, allowing the six months to expire and then sue them. "The judge states that through their dealings both parties made it inequitable to count the time of the negotiations as a part of the six months. The defendants relied on this promise, and therefore it would be unfair to make them liable in this case." (Case …show more content…
By relying on this reasonable belief that there is a contract, the promisee will significantly change his position. This situation arises when the promise made by the presumptive offeror is illusory; therefore, what has been promised cannot be objectively defined or is left to the judgment of the promisor. These are not contractual relationships, even though at first glance it might appear that a contract was intended. If it can be shown that the promisee has substantially changed his position in reasonable reliance on the promise, the law will not allow him to suffer. The promisor will be obligated to compensate the promisee. The promisor is prevented, or estoppel, from avoiding a promise because to do so would be unfair to the promisee. (Helewitz