- Published on
Contract Law – Promissory Estoppel
When there is no clear consideration for contract changes, it's important to determine whether promissory estoppel applies. Promissory estoppel protects a promisee against a claim from a promisor who has agreed to accept a lower amount than originally agreed upon.
Key term: promissory estoppel
Promissory estoppel is a legal defense that allows a debtor to prevent a creditor from accepting less than the agreed-upon amount. Criteria that must be met for promissory estoppel to apply
If Celine has been renting the shop since .Tom informs Caroline that he will not collect rent for her shop in July. However, due to financial turmoil in 2022, they will not defend their rights under the contract. COVID-19 affects contract amendments rather than contract formation. Tom’s
agreement with Celine is an update to the original agreement established in January 2022.
The promisee should have relied on the promise
Celine decides to maintain renting the shop after Tom’s statement, rather than looking for a cheaper option.
Refusing to keep a promise must be inequitable (unfair)
If Celine continues to rent the shop and is obligated to pay for all months except July 2022, it would be unreasonable for Tom to breach his promise. If Celine threatened to generate unwanted information about Tom’s business if he did not let her off her rent for July 2022, this is considered duress under English law. Due to duress, Tom is not obligated to keep his pledge to Celine,, as it would be fair to enable him to break the arrangement.
Promissory estoppel provides restricted rights compared to completely legally binding contracts. Promissory estoppel precludes the promisor from violating their promise not to enforce their rights under the contract.
Promissory estoppel is commonly said to as a defensive tool rather than an offensive one.
Vision Properties leased a building of flats in London to Lee Properties in November 2019. Lee Properties agrees to pay Vision Properties £10,000 per flat annually. Lee Properties intends to profitably rent out the block's approximately 100 flats.Lee Properties is unable to locate renters for their flats in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 outbreak in London. Lee Properties explained the issue to Vision Properties, who agreed to cut the flat fee to £5,000 per flat. Lee Properties and Vision Properties agree that the annual rent per property will revert to £10,000 in June 2021, as individuals return to London and all flats are rented out. Vision Properties requires Lee Properties to pay the entire rent of £10,000 per flat every year from March 2020 to June 2021. Is Lee Properties responsible for paying Vision Properties for unoccupied flats?
The answer is "no." Vision Properties' pledge to accept lower rent may not be legally binding, but promissory estoppel prevents them from breaking the agreement. The promissory estoppel criteria are met: Vision Properties made a clear promise not to enforce its rights under the contract, the contract is an amendment to an existing one, Lee Properties relied on Vision Properties' statement, and it would be inequitable for Vision Properties to break its promise.
When there is no clear consideration for contract changes, it's important to determine whether promissory estoppel applies. Promissory estoppel protects a promisee against a claim from a promisor who has agreed to accept a lower amount than originally agreed upon.
Key term: promissory estoppel
Promissory estoppel is a legal defense that allows a debtor to prevent a creditor from accepting less than the agreed-upon amount. Criteria that must be met for promissory estoppel to apply
If Celine has been renting the shop since .Tom informs Caroline that he will not collect rent for her shop in July. However, due to financial turmoil in 2022, they will not defend their rights under the contract. COVID-19 affects contract amendments rather than contract formation. Tom’s
agreement with Celine is an update to the original agreement established in January 2022.
The promisee should have relied on the promise
Celine decides to maintain renting the shop after Tom’s statement, rather than looking for a cheaper option.
Refusing to keep a promise must be inequitable (unfair)
If Celine continues to rent the shop and is obligated to pay for all months except July 2022, it would be unreasonable for Tom to breach his promise. If Celine threatened to generate unwanted information about Tom’s business if he did not let her off her rent for July 2022, this is considered duress under English law. Due to duress, Tom is not obligated to keep his pledge to Celine,, as it would be fair to enable him to break the arrangement.
Promissory estoppel provides restricted rights compared to completely legally binding contracts. Promissory estoppel precludes the promisor from violating their promise not to enforce their rights under the contract.
Promissory estoppel is commonly said to as a defensive tool rather than an offensive one.
Vision Properties leased a building of flats in London to Lee Properties in November 2019. Lee Properties agrees to pay Vision Properties £10,000 per flat annually. Lee Properties intends to profitably rent out the block's approximately 100 flats.Lee Properties is unable to locate renters for their flats in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 outbreak in London. Lee Properties explained the issue to Vision Properties, who agreed to cut the flat fee to £5,000 per flat. Lee Properties and Vision Properties agree that the annual rent per property will revert to £10,000 in June 2021, as individuals return to London and all flats are rented out. Vision Properties requires Lee Properties to pay the entire rent of £10,000 per flat every year from March 2020 to June 2021. Is Lee Properties responsible for paying Vision Properties for unoccupied flats?
The answer is "no." Vision Properties' pledge to accept lower rent may not be legally binding, but promissory estoppel prevents them from breaking the agreement. The promissory estoppel criteria are met: Vision Properties made a clear promise not to enforce its rights under the contract, the contract is an amendment to an existing one, Lee Properties relied on Vision Properties' statement, and it would be inequitable for Vision Properties to break its promise.
0 Comments