The doctrine of the promissory estoppel is a remedy afforded to a party receiving a promise/representation (the promisee) enabling them to rely on that promise/representation made by the other party (the promisor) to recover damages due to the either beneficial or prejudicial and detrimental effects of having relied on the representations made to it and having acted upon same.
[...] JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4505892. Accessed 18 Sept. 2020. [...]
[...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innominate_term accessed 17 & 18 September 2020 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp by James Chen July 2020, accessed on 16 September 2020 Bunge Corpn v Tradax SA [1981] 2 All ER 513 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 Evenden v Guildford City Association Football Club Ltd [1975] 3 All ER 269 Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. [1962] 2 QB 26 Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd The Spar Capella, The Spar Vega, The Spar Draco [2017] 4 All ER 124 Gundlach, Gregory T. ‘Exchange Governance: The Role of Legal and Nonlegal Approaches across the Exchange Process.' Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, vol no pp. [...]
[...] It is clear that, as a regular customer of Happycat Ltd, Amanda relies on the contract, the previous performance and the company's representations to her that the cat food supplied is not defective thus inducing her to continually buy from them. From our scenario, the contractual provisions relating to the reporting of the defective product only allow Amanda one week to report same and because the defects in the product only materialized up to one month later, Amanda is out of time and therefore not afforded a remedy in terms of the contract for the death of her cats as a result thereof. [...]
[...] If this were the case then it is clear that the serious effects of the defective food would amount to a repudiatory breach of the innominate term as the breach goes to the very root and purpose of the contact, which is to nourish and maintain the health and well-being of Amanda's pedigree cats and as a result of the cats perishing the whole contract is frustrated as Amanda no longer has cats for which she requires the products of Happycat Ltd for. In this instance, Amanda would be able to terminate the contract and sue for damages. [...]
[...] She regularly buys three months' supply of cat food at a time from Happycat Ltd. The contract of sale provides that - the buyer must inform Happycat Ltd of any defects in the product within a week of purchase, and - any liability for defective products is limited to the contract price. Amanda's latest batch of cat food turned out to be defective and most of her cats became ill and dies within a month of eating it. In this scenario the parties to the contract are Amanda in her capacity as the purchaser, herein also referred to as ‘the promisee', and Happycat Ltd as a supplier, herein also referred to as ‘the promisor'. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
