Business and The Law - Promisory Estoppel(case of Central London Essay

Business and The Law - Promisory Estoppel(case of Central capital of the United Kingdom Property Trust Ltd v superior Trees House Ltd - AND -Golfing Case - - Essay ExampleHowever, Lord Denning went on to state that the promise could nevertheless be enforced with respect to the war period because the Promise to simulate a smaller sum in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of considerateness and if the fusion of law and equity leads to this result, so much the better. 5 Thus, the ruling in the steep Trees case not only provided an exception to the Foakes v Beer case, but also to Pinnels Case which was sustain by Foakes v Beer. ... Lord Denning then defined the parameters for the postgraduate Trees doctrine The principle stated in the High Trees case...does not create a new cause of action where none existed before. It only prevents a party from insisting upon his strict licit rights, when it would be unjust to allow him to enforce th em.7 What can be gleaned from the ruling in High Trees and Lord Dennings explanation of the ruling in Combes, is that promissory estoppels permits a defence of detrimental reliance in the UK for the purpose of suspending a introductory commitment. However, it will not be available as a defence in respect of a new action where consideration does not exist. Put another way, the High Trees significance is that it accommodates a detrimental reliance defence for suspending previous contractual commitments. The ruling in High Trees was adopted by the Supreme Court of South Australia in Je Maintiendrai Pty. Ltd. v Quaglia 1980 26 SASR 101. In this case, the court held that in order for the doctrine of promissory estoppel to succeed it mustiness be shown that the promise could or would result in some detriment and therefore some wrong to the complainant.8 Clearly, the High Trees case opened up a method by which the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be used to prevent unconscionable a voidance of commitments. In Waltons Stores (interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988), another Australian case, the court took the High Trees doctrine a step further. In this case, the limitations to the use of the doctrine of promissory estoppel established by the High Trees case were both removed on the grounds of injustice. High Trees established that in order for a promissory estoppel defence to be successful there must be a pre-existing legal relationship between