, that the other must have been led to alter his position, but that only means that he must have been led to act differently from what he otherwise would have done. o Megaw LJ and Stephenson LJ did not dissent but arrived at the same decision with different routes o That there is a binding variation. But is this correct? If so, where is the consideration for the promise to accept payment in pounds? o But is Denning’s approach that simple reliance without any detriment is sufficient? But how does it square with the views expressed in Waltons Stores v Maher Detrimental reliance by the promise is not required, then isn’t that a depart from the doctrine of consideration? The Post Chaser (1981) Facts: o The sellers agreed to sell a quantity of palm-oil to the buyers who in turn contracted to sell them to sub-buyers. The sellers delayed in handing over certain documents in breach of contract. The buyer waived this breach, but then rejected the oil when its sub-buyer rejected it. The sellers claim for damages against eh buyer Issue: o The seller claimed that the buyer had waived his right to timely notification when he requested the seller to send the shipping documents directly to the sub-purchaser o Whether the buyer is estopped from restoring his strict legal rights? Decision: o Judgment for the buyer o Lord Goff o The promisor will not be allowed to enforce his rights ‘where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have thus taken place between the parties” To establish such equity, it is not necessary to show detriment, indeed the promisee may have benefited from the representation and yet it may be inequitable…for the promisor to enforce his legal rights o The buyer’s request amounted to an unambiguous promise capable of giving rise to a waiver. However, none was established because although the sellers did actively rely on the presentation there was nothing which would render it inequitable for the buyers thereafter to enforce their legal rights, particularly having regard to the very short time which elapsed Collier v P&M J Wright Holdings Ltd (2008) Reference P190-191 Facts: o Collier involved three business partners jointly liable to Wright. There is an oral agreement that P’s liability would be limited to 1/3. And over a period, P had paid a total of 1/3. Following the partners’ bankruptcy, Wright attempted to collect the total partnership debt solely from Collier. Collier argued that as Wright had promised not to pursue Collier for the full amount of the partnership debt, Collier should be able to reply upon this promise.
Issue: o D argued that he was not bound by the alleged agreement, by relying on Foakes v Beer o Whether Collier is estopped from seeking total balance of debt from partner who had paid his share?
- Fall '15
- Contract Law, o Collier