Post by Sapphire Capital on Oct 31, 2009 2:24:58 GMT 4
Promissory Estoppel and Debts
Ben Mcfarlane
University of Oxford - Faculty of Law
Contract Formation and Parties (8th Oxford-Norton Rose Colloquium), A. Burrows, E. Peel, eds., Oxford University Press, 2010
Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 35/2009
Abstract:
This paper examines the English doctrine of promissory estoppel, focussing on its application to cases where a creditor (A) is owed a debt by B and accepts, or promises to accept, payment of a lesser sum in satisfaction of that debt. It is argued that there is no single coherent doctrine of promissory estoppel, but that two of three more specific principles, applied in promissory estoppel cases, may assist B. The first principle may apply, as in Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, where A accepts B’s actual payment as discharging B’s duty to A. The second principle may apply where B is yet to pay but, following a commitment from A to accept a lesser sum, B has acted in such a way that he would suffer a detriment as a result of A’s insistence on full performance. Neither of those principles is without difficulty and the paper considers doctrinal and practical obstacles to their application.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1494947
Ben Mcfarlane
University of Oxford - Faculty of Law
Contract Formation and Parties (8th Oxford-Norton Rose Colloquium), A. Burrows, E. Peel, eds., Oxford University Press, 2010
Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 35/2009
Abstract:
This paper examines the English doctrine of promissory estoppel, focussing on its application to cases where a creditor (A) is owed a debt by B and accepts, or promises to accept, payment of a lesser sum in satisfaction of that debt. It is argued that there is no single coherent doctrine of promissory estoppel, but that two of three more specific principles, applied in promissory estoppel cases, may assist B. The first principle may apply, as in Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, where A accepts B’s actual payment as discharging B’s duty to A. The second principle may apply where B is yet to pay but, following a commitment from A to accept a lesser sum, B has acted in such a way that he would suffer a detriment as a result of A’s insistence on full performance. Neither of those principles is without difficulty and the paper considers doctrinal and practical obstacles to their application.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1494947