Course material

1. Answers: ‘The doctrine of promissory estoppel suggests that
consideration is
Answers:
‘The doctrine of promissory estoppel suggests that consideration is not always required to
give legal effect to a promise’.
Critically evaluate the accuracy of this statement with reference to supporting legal
authorities.
The doctrine of ‘promissory estoppel’ allows a party to recover damages from another party
on the basis of the promise made by the other party. Under contract law, several principles
and elements are considered essential for the contract to be valid. Consideration is one of
the essential elements of a contract. However, in cases wherein the doctrine of promissory
estoppel is applicable, the reliance of the promisee on the promise is considered to be
sufficient for the establishment of a contract between the promisor and promisee.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable in cases wherein the promise was made
with the intention to create legal relations between the parties. The promise may be made
expressly through words or through implication by the conduct of the other party. Under
most cases of contract law, consideration is seen as an essential element to a valid contract,
and each party must get some form of consideration from the contract for the contract to be
considered enforceable under law. However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is
considered to be an exception to the requirement of the element of consideration. The court
will usually consider the doctrine to be applied between the relevant parties if a legal
relationship existed between the parties, a promise was made by one of the parties on the
basis of which the other party acted, and a detriment occurred to the promisee as a result of
the promisor’s failure to fulfil their part of the promise. Therefore, a real measurable
consideration may not be exchanged for the doctrine of promissory estoppel to be
applicable. The High Trees case defined the application of the doctrine of promissory
estoppel as a shield or a form of defence mechanism and not a sword. This implies that the
application of the doctrine is simply for the purpose of protecting parties from the
detriment caused by broken promises and not for the purpose of creating new causes of

2. action. This is because of the lack of consideration between the parties, which is a necessary
element for creating new legal rights under English law. The doctrine is primarily based on
the principle of consideration and is applied by the courts to prevent an individual from
breaking their promise, even when the promise is not supported by consideration. The legal
relationship between the two parties to the promise is impacted as a result of the promise
made by one party and the change of intention of the promisor after the promisee has taken
action on the basis of the promise.
The change of legal relationship between the two parties is necessary for the doctrine to be
considered applicable, and the requirement of consideration is not necessary. An example of
this is the case of the Estate of Timko. The relevant facts of the case were that Timko was a
member of the board of trustees of a school and provided the recommendation that the
school ought to buy a building for a considerable amount of money. He also promised to pay
the purchase price at the end of a five year period except for the down payment. However,
he passed away before the five year period, and the school demanded payment from the
Estate of Timko. The Estate relied on the defence that Timko had not received any
consideration in return for his promise, and therefore there was no valid contract between
the parties. However, the court held that since the school had acted on the basis of Timko’s
promise, the contract was valid as per the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Timko’s promise
changed the legal relationship of the school and Timko, and thus all the elements of the
doctrine were fulfilled. The case also reflects how certain pledges that lead charitable
institutions to take action for a substantial monetary amount would create a binding legal
effect against the promisor. Estoppel serves to act as a substitute for the absence of
consideration and allows for the enforcement of a gratuitous promise, especially in cases
where the gratuitous promise was significant in leading the promisee to act and bear
detriment in case the promisor changed their position in relation to the promise.
Thus, it can be noted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be applied by the courts,
even without the presence of legal consideration. However, certain other criteria, such as a
change in the legal relationships between the parties as a result of the promise, must be
fulfilled for the promise to be considered contractually valid.