When is it true that, if established, estoppel by convention has the same effect as promissory estoppel?
Compare: Chitty on Contracts: General Principles, Vol 1, 31st Edition, 3-111: Effect of estoppel by convention [page 373] (available on google books).
It says that
"In cases of promissory estoppel, the promisor or representor is not estopped from denying that the promise of representation has been made: on the contrary...
... Where, on the other hand, the requirements of estoppel by convention are satisfied, then this type of estoppel normally operates to prevent a party from denying a fact, i.e. that the assumed promise has been made, or that a promise contains the assumed term: it does not specify the legal effects of the assumed promise or term."
So it seems that, if established, estoppel by convention cannot on its own enforce a promise, unless it is accompanied by either consideration or promissory estoppel.
Is this right? What's wrong with this understanding?
x Turn on thread page Beta
Is it true that estoppel by convention has the same effect as promissory estoppel? watch
- Thread Starter
- 31-03-2016 23:30
- Thread Starter
- 01-04-2016 20:51
More thoughts: estoppel by convention enforces a convention if the convention is how both parties understood the contract (even if the contract didn't explicitly say the thing)?
This is (it seems to me) the case certainly in Vistafjord. I'm not so sure about ING Bank NV v Ros Roca SA, but I think it is the case here too.
This interpretation is still not quite right. In the Texas bank case, the convention was about the original content of the contract, but Chitty says that the estoppel only enforced the convention because consideration was present.
So, what's going on?