Business and The Law - Promisory Estoppel(case of Central London Essay

Business and The Law - Promisory Estoppel(case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd - AND -Golfing Case - - Essay Example However, Lord Denning went on to state that the promise could nevertheless be enforced with respect to the war period because the: Promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration: and if the fusion of law and equity leads to this result, so much the better. 5 Thus, the ruling in the High Trees case not only provided an exception to the Foakes v Beer case, but also to Pinnel’s Case which was affirmed by Foakes v Beer. ... Lord Denning then defined the parameters for the High Trees doctrine: The principle stated in the High Trees case...does not create a new cause of action where none existed before. It only prevents a party from insisting upon his strict legal rights, when it would be unjust to allow him to enforce them.7 What can be gleaned from the ruling in High Trees and Lord Denning’s explanation of the ruling in Combes, is that promissory estoppels permits a defence of detrimental reliance in the UK for the purpose of suspending a previous commitment. However, it will not be available as a defence in respect of a new action where consideration does not exist. Put another way, the High Trees significance is that it accommodates a detrimental reliance defence for suspending previous contractual commitments. The ruling in High Trees was adopted by the Supreme Court of South Australia in Je Maintiendrai Pty. Ltd. v Quaglia [1980] 26 SASR 101. In this case, the court held that in order for the doctrine of promissory estoppel to succeed it must be shown that the promise could or would â€Å"result in some detriment and therefore some injustice† to the complainant.8 Clearly, the High Trees case opened up a method by which the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be used to prevent unconscionable avoidance of commitments. In Waltons Stores (interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988), another Australian case, the court took the High Trees doctrine a step further. In this case, the limitations to the use of the doctrine of promissory estoppel established by the High Trees case were both removed on the grounds of injustice. High Trees established that in order for a promissory estoppel defence to be successful there must be a pre-existing legal relationship between