Promissory Estoppel - Help me please
I have been given a mooting problem, which is given at thE en dof this post. I am representing Ellen Fisher (Respondent) and have worked out my submission structure - Consideration, Valid and Promissory Estoppel - following from the end result given in the case. I have done the first part; Ie what makes a contract and applied it etc - We've also covered formation of a contract in lectures so I have a real understanding. I am REALLY struggling with Promissory Estoppel - I have never heard of it and had no lectures on it yet. I have been reading all morning and have noted the basics and the fact that there are the cases of Hightrees, Collier and Builders & Rees to go with it. However, since I don't have a REAL grasp - Im finding it so so hard applying it to the case and working out the cases given and how they apply. If anyone can offer ANY help - Id be sooo grateful 
Round 1 problem 2006-2007
In the Courth of Appeal (Civil Division)
South Thameside Construction Limited v Ellen Fisher
Ms Fisher worked as a personnel manager at the Appellant’s company, South Thameside Construction Ltd for the past 10 years. On 10th January 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher explaining that they would be contributing extra funds to her occupational pension scheme in April 2006. Their letter stated:
‘In appreciation of your hard work over the last year, we have decided to make a discretionary one-off contribution to your pension plan of 15% of your current salary. The payment will take place at the end of this financial year. If you wish to accept this offer, please reply by 16th January.’
Ms Fisher replied to the letter on 11th January and continued to work as normal. In February 2006, Ms Fisher received an offer of employment from another construction company, but rejected it on the basis that their pension arrangements were less beneficial than South Thameside’s.
On 22 March 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher stating that the company was facing financial difficulties and that they would not be able to make the payment.
At first instance, Willow J found that:
a) There was a binding agreement between the parties:
ii. Ms Fisher had provided consideration for the Appellant’s promise, on the grounds that Ms Fisher’s continued employment constituted a factual benefit to the Appellants.
b) Furthermore, in the absence of a binding agreement, the Appellants were estopped from reneging on their promise.
South Thameside appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Round 1 problem 2006-2007
In the Courth of Appeal (Civil Division)
South Thameside Construction Limited v Ellen Fisher
Ms Fisher worked as a personnel manager at the Appellant’s company, South Thameside Construction Ltd for the past 10 years. On 10th January 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher explaining that they would be contributing extra funds to her occupational pension scheme in April 2006. Their letter stated:
‘In appreciation of your hard work over the last year, we have decided to make a discretionary one-off contribution to your pension plan of 15% of your current salary. The payment will take place at the end of this financial year. If you wish to accept this offer, please reply by 16th January.’
Ms Fisher replied to the letter on 11th January and continued to work as normal. In February 2006, Ms Fisher received an offer of employment from another construction company, but rejected it on the basis that their pension arrangements were less beneficial than South Thameside’s.
On 22 March 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher stating that the company was facing financial difficulties and that they would not be able to make the payment.
At first instance, Willow J found that:
a) There was a binding agreement between the parties:
ii. Ms Fisher had provided consideration for the Appellant’s promise, on the grounds that Ms Fisher’s continued employment constituted a factual benefit to the Appellants.
b) Furthermore, in the absence of a binding agreement, the Appellants were estopped from reneging on their promise.
South Thameside appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by RevisingHard
I have been given a mooting problem, which is given at thE en dof this post. I am representing Ellen Fisher (Respondent) and have worked out my submission structure - Consideration, Valid and Promissory Estoppel - following from the end result given in the case. I have done the first part; Ie what makes a contract and applied it etc - We've also covered formation of a contract in lectures so I have a real understanding. I am REALLY struggling with Promissory Estoppel - I have never heard of it and had no lectures on it yet. I have been reading all morning and have noted the basics and the fact that there are the cases of Hightrees, Collier and Builders & Rees to go with it. However, since I don't have a REAL grasp - Im finding it so so hard applying it to the case and working out the cases given and how they apply. If anyone can offer ANY help - Id be sooo grateful
Round 1 problem 2006-2007
In the Courth of Appeal (Civil Division)
South Thameside Construction Limited v Ellen Fisher
Ms Fisher worked as a personnel manager at the Appellant’s company, South Thameside Construction Ltd for the past 10 years. On 10th January 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher explaining that they would be contributing extra funds to her occupational pension scheme in April 2006. Their letter stated:
‘In appreciation of your hard work over the last year, we have decided to make a discretionary one-off contribution to your pension plan of 15% of your current salary. The payment will take place at the end of this financial year. If you wish to accept this offer, please reply by 16th January.’
Ms Fisher replied to the letter on 11th January and continued to work as normal. In February 2006, Ms Fisher received an offer of employment from another construction company, but rejected it on the basis that their pension arrangements were less beneficial than South Thameside’s.
On 22 March 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher stating that the company was facing financial difficulties and that they would not be able to make the payment.
At first instance, Willow J found that:
a) There was a binding agreement between the parties:
ii. Ms Fisher had provided consideration for the Appellant’s promise, on the grounds that Ms Fisher’s continued employment constituted a factual benefit to the Appellants.
b) Furthermore, in the absence of a binding agreement, the Appellants were estopped from reneging on their promise.
South Thameside appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Round 1 problem 2006-2007
In the Courth of Appeal (Civil Division)
South Thameside Construction Limited v Ellen Fisher
Ms Fisher worked as a personnel manager at the Appellant’s company, South Thameside Construction Ltd for the past 10 years. On 10th January 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher explaining that they would be contributing extra funds to her occupational pension scheme in April 2006. Their letter stated:
‘In appreciation of your hard work over the last year, we have decided to make a discretionary one-off contribution to your pension plan of 15% of your current salary. The payment will take place at the end of this financial year. If you wish to accept this offer, please reply by 16th January.’
Ms Fisher replied to the letter on 11th January and continued to work as normal. In February 2006, Ms Fisher received an offer of employment from another construction company, but rejected it on the basis that their pension arrangements were less beneficial than South Thameside’s.
On 22 March 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher stating that the company was facing financial difficulties and that they would not be able to make the payment.
At first instance, Willow J found that:
a) There was a binding agreement between the parties:
ii. Ms Fisher had provided consideration for the Appellant’s promise, on the grounds that Ms Fisher’s continued employment constituted a factual benefit to the Appellants.
b) Furthermore, in the absence of a binding agreement, the Appellants were estopped from reneging on their promise.
South Thameside appeals to the Court of Appeal.
I have the exact same question for mooting at QMUL
I am a respondent!
Try doing an advanced search under my name; pretty sure I've done a fairly detailed explanation of moots that are quite similar to this
RE: the PM, having actually read the question I now understand why you are having trouble. This is quite a difficult moot if you haven't done p.e., I think, but you'll be fine.
Basically, to claim p.e. you need 3 things:
- a representation
- reliance on that representation
- unconscionability (i.e. its unconscionable for the promisor to go back on it).
Here the representation and the reliance are obvious (though state what the rep and reliance are) and there is probably unconscionability, though you should try to demonstrate unconscionability.
The problem is that promissory estoppel is usually just a defence. Generally, you can rely on it to defend against claims (e.g. the Foakes v Beer/Pinnel's Case situation where X promises to accept £100 instead of a full debt of £200, and is estopped from later suing for the full £200 even though there was no consideration for that promise) but not to create positive rights (as in this situation, where Ms. F wants a larger pension pot, so she is the one suing). This is known as the "sword but not a shield" rule which you will see referred to in the textbooks. The standard case your opponent will cite in favour of that proposition is Combe v Combe.
The Australian courts have taken the view that people SHOULD be able to rely on p.e. to create positive rights, see the Australian Walton Stores case. That isn't the position in the U.K. right now so be prepared to put forward a quick policy reason or two why p.e. SHOULD create positive rights (you are in the Court of Appeal). I'm sure u can find more info about this on google.
good luck...
Basically, to claim p.e. you need 3 things:
- a representation
- reliance on that representation
- unconscionability (i.e. its unconscionable for the promisor to go back on it).
Here the representation and the reliance are obvious (though state what the rep and reliance are) and there is probably unconscionability, though you should try to demonstrate unconscionability.
The problem is that promissory estoppel is usually just a defence. Generally, you can rely on it to defend against claims (e.g. the Foakes v Beer/Pinnel's Case situation where X promises to accept £100 instead of a full debt of £200, and is estopped from later suing for the full £200 even though there was no consideration for that promise) but not to create positive rights (as in this situation, where Ms. F wants a larger pension pot, so she is the one suing). This is known as the "sword but not a shield" rule which you will see referred to in the textbooks. The standard case your opponent will cite in favour of that proposition is Combe v Combe.
The Australian courts have taken the view that people SHOULD be able to rely on p.e. to create positive rights, see the Australian Walton Stores case. That isn't the position in the U.K. right now so be prepared to put forward a quick policy reason or two why p.e. SHOULD create positive rights (you are in the Court of Appeal). I'm sure u can find more info about this on google.
good luck...
(edited 13 years ago)
I wonnnnnn yayyyyy thanks!
I can send you all my cases and skeleton argument and speech docs if you want?
Hi I am studying law at Birmingham University
We have the exact same question for our moot in a few weeks time!
I have gone through the textbook and really struggling as we havent covered promissory estoppell yet as I am a first year.
Would anyone be able to help me, I am finding the text book really hard to understand, or explain how you would format an argument as the respondent?
Thank you SO MUCH in advance
Jack
We have the exact same question for our moot in a few weeks time!
I have gone through the textbook and really struggling as we havent covered promissory estoppell yet as I am a first year.
Would anyone be able to help me, I am finding the text book really hard to understand, or explain how you would format an argument as the respondent?
Thank you SO MUCH in advance
Jack
Original post by lawstudent100
Hi I am studying law at Birmingham University
We have the exact same question for our moot in a few weeks time!
I have gone through the textbook and really struggling as we havent covered promissory estoppell yet as I am a first year.
Would anyone be able to help me, I am finding the text book really hard to understand, or explain how you would format an argument as the respondent?
Thank you SO MUCH in advance
Jack
We have the exact same question for our moot in a few weeks time!
I have gone through the textbook and really struggling as we havent covered promissory estoppell yet as I am a first year.
Would anyone be able to help me, I am finding the text book really hard to understand, or explain how you would format an argument as the respondent?
Thank you SO MUCH in advance
Jack
Lol I can send you my bundle if you want, if you DO want; could you send me a private message with your email adress
Ta
Original post by RevisingHard
Lol I can send you my bundle if you want, if you DO want; could you send me a private message with your email adress
Ta
Ta
I have sent you a PM about you notes. Please respond asap.
I got 81% on my promissory estoppel moot , good luck with yours. It took me around 9 hours of work....
, good luck with yours. It took me around 9 hours of work....Hey guys
Does anyone know what the situation is regarding promissory estoppel when a party has the option of a severance payment.
For example, X has an agreement with Y that they will sell their product and pay £5 in royalties for each item, this agreement can be terminated at any time by paying a severance of £100k. Due to the economic slow-down X puts on a sale and reduce each item in the store by 20% and Y agrees that the royalties can be reduced by 20% but the matter will have to be reviewed when X's cashflow improves.
Now X are trying to buy themselves out of the contract by paying £100k severance. Can they do this?
Thanks
Does anyone know what the situation is regarding promissory estoppel when a party has the option of a severance payment.
For example, X has an agreement with Y that they will sell their product and pay £5 in royalties for each item, this agreement can be terminated at any time by paying a severance of £100k. Due to the economic slow-down X puts on a sale and reduce each item in the store by 20% and Y agrees that the royalties can be reduced by 20% but the matter will have to be reviewed when X's cashflow improves.
Now X are trying to buy themselves out of the contract by paying £100k severance. Can they do this?
Thanks
Hi i have a mooting problem which i will post down below and i am completely clueless on how to start, this is the first time iv ever done a moot and iv watched countless amount of videos but its not helping so if someone could shed some light i would greatly appreciate it.I am representing Ellen Fisher (Senior Respondant)
In the Courth of Appeal (Civil Division)
South Thameside Construction Limited v Ellen Fisher
Ms Fisher worked as a personnel manager at the Appellant’s company, South Thameside Construction Ltd for the past 10 years. On 10th January 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher explaining that they would be contributing extra funds to her occupational pension scheme in April 2006. Their letter stated:
‘In appreciation of your hard work over the last year, we have decided to make a discretionary one-off contribution to your pension plan of 15% of your current salary. The payment will take place at the end of this financial year. If you wish to accept this offer, please reply by 16th January.’
Ms Fisher replied to the letter on 11th January and continued to work as normal. In February 2006, Ms Fisher received an offer of employment from another construction company, but rejected it on the basis that their pension arrangements were less beneficial than South Thameside’s.
On 22 March 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher stating that the company was facing financial difficulties and that they would not be able to make the payment.
At first instance, Willow J found that:
a) There was a binding agreement between the parties:
ii. Ms Fisher had provided consideration for the Appellant’s promise, on the grounds that Ms Fisher’s continued employment constituted a factual benefit to the Appellants.
b) Furthermore, in the absence of a binding agreement, the Appellants were estopped from reneging on their promise.
South Thameside appeals to the Court of Appeal.
In the Courth of Appeal (Civil Division)
South Thameside Construction Limited v Ellen Fisher
Ms Fisher worked as a personnel manager at the Appellant’s company, South Thameside Construction Ltd for the past 10 years. On 10th January 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher explaining that they would be contributing extra funds to her occupational pension scheme in April 2006. Their letter stated:
‘In appreciation of your hard work over the last year, we have decided to make a discretionary one-off contribution to your pension plan of 15% of your current salary. The payment will take place at the end of this financial year. If you wish to accept this offer, please reply by 16th January.’
Ms Fisher replied to the letter on 11th January and continued to work as normal. In February 2006, Ms Fisher received an offer of employment from another construction company, but rejected it on the basis that their pension arrangements were less beneficial than South Thameside’s.
On 22 March 2006, South Thameside wrote to Ms Fisher stating that the company was facing financial difficulties and that they would not be able to make the payment.
At first instance, Willow J found that:
a) There was a binding agreement between the parties:
ii. Ms Fisher had provided consideration for the Appellant’s promise, on the grounds that Ms Fisher’s continued employment constituted a factual benefit to the Appellants.
b) Furthermore, in the absence of a binding agreement, the Appellants were estopped from reneging on their promise.
South Thameside appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Original post by RevisingHard
I can send you all my cases and skeleton argument and speech docs if you want?
hi i was woundering if you still had your arguments if you could send them to me??...if you dont mind it would help me a great dea im dying out here
!!!!!!! :s if not thats fine Hi,
I have a moot which i have posted below on promissory estoppel, and i think the facts are quite like this one. I am also for the repellents (Mr Black), and it is ground 2 i am struggling on so much. Would it be ok if you could send me you're skeleton and bundle? of if not would anyone be able to help me with my moot on grounds 2 of appeal to the supreme court? Thank you so much
Alright – Appellant
v
Black – Applicant
Alan Alright is a teacher. For some time he has been interested in property development. He has
been very successful at finding run down properties and quickly developing them for sale at a
substantial profit. In February 2005 Alan found what he believed to be a property ripe for developing.
He decided to employ Brian Black, a local builder, to help with the restoration of the property. Brian
told Alan that the work would cost £18,000, this included labour and materials. Alan accepted Brian’s
quote on the proviso that the building works would be finished by 5th April. Alan told Brian that the
property had to be ready by that date because rather than sell the property he was going to let it to a
business as a ‘corporate let’. He was expecting to get £1,200 per week rent for the newly furbished
luxury flat.
Brian started work mid February. Unfortunately due to bad weather and his plasterer, Chris, having to
go into hospital for an operation, Brian realised that it would be unlikely that he would finish the job by
5th April. He informed Alan that in order to finish the work on time he would have to pay his existing
men overtime and employ a new plasterer to replace Chris. In all he would have to raise the contract
price by £5,000. Although Alan could see his profit dwindling he was more concerned that the flat
would not be ready for his first tenant to move in and so he reluctantly agreed.
Brian completed the project by the 2nd April and sent Alan his bill for £23, 000. Alan said that due to
financial difficulties he could only afford to pay £20,000. Brian thought he better accept the £20,000 in
case he ended up with nothing at all. Alan sent Brian a cheque for the £20,000 together with a bottle
of wine as a thank-you.
In July 2005 Brian heard that in May 2005 Alan had taken all his family to Florida for a three-week
holiday. Brian asked Alan for the £3,000 balance plus interest to date. Alan refused to pay the
outstanding £3,000. Brian decided to sue Alan for the outstanding amount plus interest.
At first instance, Deed J held that Alan should pay the £3,000 to Brian plus interest. Alan appealed to
the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on the basis that Deed J Erred by (1) not applying the authority of
Pinnel’s Case (1602) correctly and (2) by not applying the doctrine of equitable promissory estoppel to
the instant facts correctly.
The Court of Appeal held that the court of first instance had not erred in its judgement. Alan has
decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The following two grounds of appeal will be argued by the appellant:
1. That at common law the payment of a lesser sum together with some additional goods, in this case a bottle of wine, is sufficient consideration for a creditor’s promise to forego the balance;
2. That the doctrine of promissory estoppel should operate to prevent the respondent recovering the rest of the money.
I have a moot which i have posted below on promissory estoppel, and i think the facts are quite like this one. I am also for the repellents (Mr Black), and it is ground 2 i am struggling on so much. Would it be ok if you could send me you're skeleton and bundle? of if not would anyone be able to help me with my moot on grounds 2 of appeal to the supreme court? Thank you so much
Alright – Appellant
v
Black – Applicant
Alan Alright is a teacher. For some time he has been interested in property development. He has
been very successful at finding run down properties and quickly developing them for sale at a
substantial profit. In February 2005 Alan found what he believed to be a property ripe for developing.
He decided to employ Brian Black, a local builder, to help with the restoration of the property. Brian
told Alan that the work would cost £18,000, this included labour and materials. Alan accepted Brian’s
quote on the proviso that the building works would be finished by 5th April. Alan told Brian that the
property had to be ready by that date because rather than sell the property he was going to let it to a
business as a ‘corporate let’. He was expecting to get £1,200 per week rent for the newly furbished
luxury flat.
Brian started work mid February. Unfortunately due to bad weather and his plasterer, Chris, having to
go into hospital for an operation, Brian realised that it would be unlikely that he would finish the job by
5th April. He informed Alan that in order to finish the work on time he would have to pay his existing
men overtime and employ a new plasterer to replace Chris. In all he would have to raise the contract
price by £5,000. Although Alan could see his profit dwindling he was more concerned that the flat
would not be ready for his first tenant to move in and so he reluctantly agreed.
Brian completed the project by the 2nd April and sent Alan his bill for £23, 000. Alan said that due to
financial difficulties he could only afford to pay £20,000. Brian thought he better accept the £20,000 in
case he ended up with nothing at all. Alan sent Brian a cheque for the £20,000 together with a bottle
of wine as a thank-you.
In July 2005 Brian heard that in May 2005 Alan had taken all his family to Florida for a three-week
holiday. Brian asked Alan for the £3,000 balance plus interest to date. Alan refused to pay the
outstanding £3,000. Brian decided to sue Alan for the outstanding amount plus interest.
At first instance, Deed J held that Alan should pay the £3,000 to Brian plus interest. Alan appealed to
the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on the basis that Deed J Erred by (1) not applying the authority of
Pinnel’s Case (1602) correctly and (2) by not applying the doctrine of equitable promissory estoppel to
the instant facts correctly.
The Court of Appeal held that the court of first instance had not erred in its judgement. Alan has
decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The following two grounds of appeal will be argued by the appellant:
1. That at common law the payment of a lesser sum together with some additional goods, in this case a bottle of wine, is sufficient consideration for a creditor’s promise to forego the balance;
2. That the doctrine of promissory estoppel should operate to prevent the respondent recovering the rest of the money.
Original post by chlorine
Original post by chlorine
Hey i was wondering if anyone would be able to send me the bundle and skeleton argument, because i haveto do a moot in 2 weeks and my group isn't being of any help so i have to do everything myself!
disame me
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AQA A-level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Can anyone help me to do ROE For dental nursing please ?
- Punjabi GCSE (AQA) - Need urgent Help
- Unit 19: Study Skills Portfolio Building
- Unit 19 health and social care, HELP PLEASE!!
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Silver Idea Award/ Maker Resolution
- Silver idea award
- Bangor University GCSE Revision guides?
- How to get an A* in Economics?
- Dental Nurse Zoom OSCE
- what is the best way to revise for a level economics (edexcel)
- University of Malta Medicine entrance exams
- advice gcse
- Scratch help!!!
- Qualified Lawyers Assessment QLA (Re-qualifying in Scotland)
- How to revise for GCSEs in less than 15 days
- Igcse help
- btec science unit 7 part a release 2023 january
- English
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
