Contract Law

Promissory Estoppel:

•    There are 57 different types of estoppel under our legal system.
•    This is why it must be qualified as promissory estoppel.
o    Invented by Denning L. in 1940s.
o    Original formulation had in it ambiguitiy almost to the point of contradiction.
•    Para 2 on page 316
o    3 or 4 diff formulations just in that one paragraph.
o    Retreats later from “create” legal relations in regards to a promise
o    “Promise must be honoured” – is this retreated from?
o    Most succinct formulation:  “Promises intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”
•    This is acceptable today…
•    “In each case the court held the promise to be binding on the parky parking it,e ven though under the old common law it might be difficult to find any consideration for it.”
•    The courts do not enforce the promise but do not allow the promisor to act inconsistently with it…?
•    Runs around Foakes v. Beer in this way.  Uses estoppel as a work-around.

Combe v. Combe
•    The text points out the absurdity of the fact of a matrimonial case becoming a contract precedent.
o    This is in fact what our legal tradition began doing in the 19th century.
o    The Victorial era began inventing contract law by abstracting out of all the contracts that had always existed and began to find common elements in them all.
•    Led to basic rules such as offer, acceptance, and consideration.
•    Divorced contract law from its particular situation and created a general-field theory – “The law of contracts”
•    The facts are remniscent of Balfour v. Balfour.
o    Here, the couple, during divorce, came to an agreement between them for him to pay her £100 / year.
o    After 6 ¾ years, she sues him for the arrears (he had paid nothing)
o    She wants to enforce a promise.
o    But our legal system doesn’t enforce promises.  We need consideration – a bargain.
o    What is it suggested that she swapped with him?
•    Forbearance – forebore to take him to Divorce Court.
•    This sounds like consideration.
o    Denning L. has 2 answers:
•    1)  Nothing to suggest that this was intended by either the husband or wife.  It was not a bargained-for forbearance.
•    Similar to Dalhousie v. Boutilier
•    2)  Even if she had promised to forebear, she would never lose the right to apply to the Divorce Court – there was (and still is, in a sense – in the sense that it now applies to either sex) a rule that a wife could not bar herself from getting court-ordered maintenance.
•    Denning L. says that she didn’t make this promise anyway, but even if she did, it would not be binding because it has no value.  She cannot contract herself out of this right.
•    This means that the rule, which appears to be solicitous to wives, can be read in a way to be beneficial to husbands (as in this case).
•    Normally, a bargained-for forbearance is consideration.  This is a special case because of this aforementioned rule.
•    Whenever one has a scenario where the enforceability of a promise is in dispute, then consideration must be considered first.
o    If consideration is found, then there is no need to go forth and talk about estoppel.
o    Estoppel is what makes this case famous.
•    Trial judge, having found that there was no consideration, went on and upheld the husband’s promise.
o    Did so because he believed the case fit neatly under the High Trees principle.
•    A promise relied on, and intended to be relied on, is binding.
o    Denning L. says that though it looks like it fits, he had been too broad with his wording in High Trees.
•    Combe v. Combe introduces a refinement on High Trees.
•    Page 318 – para 3:  “…lest it should be endangered.”   In other words, lest it be overruled by a higher court.
•    It is not a creative doctrine – it is a preventative doctrine.
•    “It only prevents a party from insisting on his strict legal rights when it would be unjust to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings with have taken place between the parties.”
•    Though he says this, he immediately goes on to say that that is not to say that it is only available to defendants.
•    When one thinks of estoppel, naturally equates it with defendants.
•    Denning L. says that plaintiffs can use it just as readily, but it must always be a defensive doctrine.
•    Gives examples on top of 319.
•    Foakes v. Beer comes into play in these examples.
•    “Example 2 is breath-taking” – Bell
o    “Can even say that example #1 is breath-taking.” – Bell
o    Denning gives account of a gov. dept and the war-service disease.
•    There was a statute that said anyone whose disease was due to war service got a pension
•    Robertson made a claim as such.  Ministry accepted it, and Robertson stopped collecting evidence.
•    Then, the ministry changed its mind and said that they needed more evidence.
•    Robertson sues on his statutory entitlement to a pension.
o    Ministry says that they need evidence
o    Roberson claims they are estopped, because he put reasonable reliance on their word that they needed no more.
o    This is a case where the plaintiff estopps a defendant.
•    Robertson wasn’t suing the ministry saying, “You promised me.”  He sued on his statutory right for pension.
•    Then when they raised the inevitable defence, he put forth that they were estopped.
•    In none of these cases were the plaintiffs suing on the promise.
•    Estoppel is never part of the cause of action, but plays a key role in determining whether someone is going to win or lose.  Is a subsidiary feature of the case.
o    Denning gives a new formulation.  Less succinct than previous formulation.  Enormously wordy.  P 319 end of para 3.
•    Has inserted “conduct”
•    Could be relevant – case where a landlord allows rent to be late for 6 months, then on the 7th uses it ‘as an excuse’ to kick the pl. out.  The pl would argue that the conduct of the landlord had led them to believe it was okay.
•    “only by his word” is not accurate.  Should read, “by reasonable reliance”
•    Still has not given qulification.
o    Para 4
•    Says that if we took seriously the principle form high trees, (reasonable reliance), then why would we need consideration?
•    There is an answer…
•    Denning now accepts that this principle would overturn 9/10 of the doctrine of consideration…
•    “Its ill effecta have been largely mitigated of late, but it still remains a cardinal necessit of the formation of a contract, although not of its modification or discharge.  I fear that it was my failure to make this clear in High Trees which misled [the trial judge] in the present case.”
•    SO, cannot sue based on estoppel, but if have another issue, then can bring estopple into play.
•    Likewise, if one is being sued (and is therefore compelled into court), then can use estoppel
•    Unfortunately for Mrs. Combe, she is relying on estoppel.  This is why her action ends up being dismissed.
•    Aside:  There is no difference between variation and modification.
o    Denning says that one can use estoppel defensively, not offensively. (“to be used as a shield and not as a sword”. – Birkett L.J. page 321.  Famous disctinction created by Birkett here.)
•    WHY DIDN’T COMBE APPLY TO…[this is Bell’s favourite exam question.  Figure out what he said.  Was purposefully elusive.]  Wilbur?
•    High trees made it seem as though reasonable reliance alone would be enough to enforce a promise.
o    This would have revolutionized contracts – would have been just about fatal to doctrine of consideration.
o    To sue to enforce a promise requires consideration.
•    This is why the wife cannot win.
•    Promissory Estoppel goes from 2 factors to 3
•    1)  Promise and intention to be relied on
•    2)  And relied on by the promisee
•    3)  except that, a promisee cannot sue on the promise based on estoppel.  It cannot be the foundation of the case – the cause of action.
•    Each side can use estoppel, but the plaintiff can never sue successfully using estoppel as a cause of action.
o    This is for no good reason other than Denning L. says so
o    Denning L. made his career on making cases stand for things that judges could not foresee them standing for…
o    “Law is an awful lot like fairy tales… We often treat the past with as much profundity as a fairy tale.  …We make the wisdom of the past say something that it didn’t say yesterday.”
o    Everyone is happy to see Foakes v. Beer be defanged, so we all go along with it an pretend it makes sense.

Page 322 – Note 5.
•    Suggestion that estoppel principle might have been a substitute for consideration
Note 6
•    A) a profound question that we must eventually be able to think about…
o    The effect of the sword/shield distinction means that my promise to take less from you than I’m entitled to may be binding on me,
•    Suppose B owes A $100.  If A promises to take only $90, then the estoppel principle says that A can take the $90 (enforecable), but, if instead A owes B $100, and A promises to pay $110, then then law won’t enforce the promise.
•    This is despite that in both examples, B is $10 better off.
•    When estoppel works in high-trees, the land-lord is estopped from going back on his promise
•    When it doesn’t work in combe, the wife cannot enforce the husband’s promise that she will get money
•    6a asks us to thing about whether there is a sensible distinction between a promise to take less, versus a promise to pay more…
•    they both amount to one person being $10 richer than they otherwise would be.
•    This case did make its way to the JCPC – they gavem ultiple factors to come into an estoppel, but amounted to what Denning L. has already said.
o    “resile” – abandon a position or course of action.

D. & C. Builders Ltd. v. Rees.
•    15 years later
•    Denning L. by this time the most famous judge in the common-law world.
•    Had been promoted to house of lords, but found there was less influence here.
o    Arranged for his won demotion to chief justice of court of appeal
o    Assigned all good cases to himself.
o    M.R. – master of the roles.

Read this case for next day.  Read on to the two other decisions on pa 326 to think about where Denning’s decision stands in regards to the two others.
Also, go on to Waltons – a potentiall spectacular case from Aus. – goes back to High tress without Combe v. Combe.

Intention
Intention refers to the time of formation.
•    The contract is the contract that was formed at that moment.
•    Nothing that happened afterwards is at all relevant.
•    Do not discuss intention without acknowledging that it is crystalized at the moment of formation.
•    Intention must be judge objectively.
o    People intend what we say they intend.
o    Ex:  Esquimalt:  Land means land, no matter what you thought you meant.
o    Carlill – the ad means what the public thought it meant.
o    The objective view is the view that we impute to the person who utters the words that we call offer.
o    Smith v. Hughes p 417
•    Passage is quoted everywhere.
•    Beware of speaking of meeting of the minds.
•    NEVER mention this.  Then cannot go wrong.
Intention to affect relations
•    Law strongly presumes that if we participate in an arrangment with offer, acceptance and consideration, we mean to affect our legal intention.
•    Letters of comfort, government policy announcements (whether the gov was simply announcing a gratuity, or making something that with much processing could be called an offer), contexts which complicate this idea – other than that, not a major issue.

•    Family-type – contrary presumption prevails.
o    Presumption that they did not intend to affect legal relations.  Also family-like relations.
o    The land-lady and the boarder.
o    Of course the presumption is rebuttable.
o    Again, must judge in an objective way.
•    Going to lawyer, signing before witnesses, etc., can show objectively, an intention to affect legal relations.

•    Technically, offers are only offers if the person uttering it intended it to be an offer.
o    It is what a reasonable observer would infer – whether the would surmise that it was intended to be an offer.
o    If the words fall short of the unequivocal and detailed character req’d to const. an offer, then the words have no contractual sig.
o    May not be right to say they have no legal significance, but have no contractual sig.
o    Doesn’t matter what they are called if they have no contractual sig.
•    Can be invitations to treat, negotiations, etc.  Doesn’t matter, because they are legal terms without contect.  Cannot enforce.
•    Sufficiently detailed may well mean that it has very few details.
•    Just need essential details.
o    Sale of goods, for example, price is important.
o    Offer does not have to be terribly detailed.

•    Courts usually understand ads to be invitations to treat
o    Ads are usually by merchants, and therefore have limited stock.
o    Cannot be offering to all who might see the ad.
o    Since no merch could have enough products to satisfy the public if every memeer who saw the ad “accepted”, courts think it is implausible that the merch advertiser intended to offer.
o    That being said, sometimes ads do transcend being an invitation to treat, and are Offers.
•    The lawnmore argument from the last test – argueable, the for sale sign could be an offer instead of an invitation to treat.  The ordinary idea of being an invitation to treat arguably does not apply to non-merchants with their one-product and sign.

Firm offers
•    An offer so phrased as to be open until a set date.
•    Irony is that they are not firm.
•    “called firm offers just to trick people who haven’t been to law school” – Bell
•    they, like any offer, can be revoked at any time, because there is no consideration for the promise to keep the offer open.
•    Firm offers are not firm at all.
o    Suppose we did want to make an offer firm.
o    Can give consideration – buy the option.
o    Enter a contract to keep the offer open.
•    This is called an option.
•    If it is an option about land, then it has to comply with the statutes of Frauds:  has to be in writing, signed by the party to be obligated by the agreement (the offerer of the land); the party who is sought to be bound.

Acceptance
•    Offerer is the master of the acceptance – can reject the acceptance unless it corresponds quite exactly with the offer.
•    Provided the court does infer that the offerer did intend that the offeree do something to accept
•    Offere may overlook, however, that acceptance was, for instance, to be made by certified cheque.
•    Must correspond to offer.
•    In most cases, the when of acceptance is when the offere succeeds in communicating Acceptance to the offerer, unless some other means was specified.
o    When the postal rule applies (which is rare), communication happens when the Acceptance is posted (provided there is nothing in the offer negatingthis)
Postal Rule
•    Just because fact of post is present, does not mean that the law of the postal rule is present.
•    However, jurisprudence tends to say that the postal rule applies when the post was used, and it is a not-unusual way of accepting in the circumstances (and it is not precluded in the contract).
•    More novel ways of communication have not been subject to the postal rule of acceptance – the have been equated to inter-personal means of acceptance.

Unilateral offers
•    A bilateral offer is one which is so phrased to contemplate promissory acceptance.
o    “I accept” is enough to accept it.  Does not have to do anything.
•    A unilateral offer is so phrased that it calls not for promissory acceptance, but to do something.  This something, when done, constitutues both the consideration and acceptance.
o    Allegedly called unilateral because it contemplates action by only one side.
o    “If you swim across the river, I will give you $1000.”
•    Can’t be accepted (strictly speaking) by saying, “I accept”.
•    If it says, “You accept by [swimming across the river; finding the lost dog; walking to York; etc.]” then it is unilateral.
o    “If you buy our product and use it to these specifications, and still get the flu, then I will pay you $xx.”
o    Carlill was a unilateral offer, but didn’t say so as it had not been invented yet.
•    Dawson discusses them (and is therefore in the case book), but is not a unilateral offer.
o    Why do courts tend to construe offers as bilateral rather than unilateral?
•    All offerees are vulnerable to revocation as long as they are mere offerees
•    Can end their vulnerability simply by saying, “I accept.”
•    These words cost nothing – make one no longer vulnerable as it is already binding.
•    By contrast, the offeree of a unilateral offer can do nothing to protect themselves besides completing the task at hand.
•    Meaning the person can be 99% of the way to York (or across the river), and the offerer can revoke the offer.  The offeree is vulnerable throughout, up until the moment of 100% completion.

•    The when of formation usually determines the where of acceptance, which can be important in establishing court jurisdiction.
o    Note:  The where is not the only basis for judicial jurisdiction.
•    It is the one under discussion in Eastern Power
•    There are Various bases for court jurisdiction.

Uncertainty
•    Even with offer, acceptance, and consideration, may not have enforceable contract.
o    Besides no intention…
o    May be too uncertain for courts to enforce.
•    In general, courts enforce broken contract by translating broken promises into awards of money to the victim.
•    If it is too uncertain, we mean that the court cannot do this calculation
•    This is not high-theory, but low-practicality.  Simply cannot be done.
•    Comes up in variety of sub-contexts.
o    Silence:  A contract may be uncertain because the parties have left things out.  Gaps.
•    If it is a major term, then it is fatally flawed.  L.C.D.H. Audio case.
•    Only cure for such a gap is if it is for sale of goods and the gap is over price, the Sale of Goods Act in every province allows the court to set a reasonable price.
•    Also, if the two parties have entered into many contracts before, courts may be able to depend on past practice.
•    Trade practice:  They may be participants in a well-established trade (such as baltic timber trade to England).  The courts will infer that they intended to go by standard trade practice.
o    These are the 3 exceptions.  Other than this, if there is a major gap, the contract is non-enforceable.
•    Minor term:  If the gap or silence is on a minor term, Versafoods tells us that courts have the jurisdiction to fill in the blanks.
•    Courts have to say that they are following the will of the parties here.
•    Have to say that the parties would have intended a reasonable solution.  Must say for idealogical reasona that everything is as the parties intended.  Courts do not make agreements, they enforce them.
•    The entirelty of the authorties quoted in Versafoods is American.  Not as much jurisprudence in this area in Canada (Common-law Canada)
o    Agreements to Agree:  Cannot enforce.  Do not know what the parties would have agreed.
•    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGREEMENTS TO AGREE AND SILENCE
•    Agreements to Agree, simpliciter, are… bad.
•    Bad because cannot translate into an award for money because the promise for performance is unknown.
•    On other hand, if want to have certainty for contract today and leave out something important to be filled in tomorrow, can have an agreement to agree + a mechanism or formula to render certain what is otherwise uncertain.
•    Foley – mechanism was an arbitrator (to set the price of petrol).  Legally sound contract with a point to be determined in the future.
•    If it is “from time to time” it is non-enforceable.  Must have the mechanism or formula in the agreement.
•    Foley – be clear on sentence, “The parties thought they had a contract and acted under it for 3 years.”  Do not conclude from this that this is a basis for saying tha tthey therefore had a contract.  We do not judge by what the parties thought they intended.  Doesn’t matter if they were under a mutual delusion of being under a contract [if they were truly under this delusion, would likely not be in court fighting].  The mere fact of thinking that they had a contract doesn’t mean anything.
o    Estoppel could be used here (but was not) (questionable – Bell said he made it up).  They do not have a contract under contract theory.  But the court will work hard to uphold the contract, as it is evident that one party is trying to “work out” of it.  If a judge wants to do something, then 99% of time will find a way to do it.
o    Strictly and legally speaking, the fact that the parties thougth that they had an agreement is irrelevant.
•    Agreement to negotiate:  practical question:  how does one translate an agreement to negotiate into an award of money?  You can’t.  period.  If they did agree, we do not know what the parties would have agreed, so cannot calculate the worth of the broken promise.
•    Argument goes that if we have an agreement to negotiate, then it is implied that one will negotiate in good faith.
o    Very few ppl put these words into a contract, but courts will usually say that if we promise a performance, we promise the performance in good faith.
o    Walford v. Miles – focus not just on duty to negotiate, but does it matter than performance of binding promises are implied to be performed IGF?
•    Page 508
•    Says a duty to negotiate IGF is antithetical to our adversarial system of negotiation (in our liberal economy)  “Inherently repugnant”
o    Once we have a contract, the law will say that the parties promised to perform in good faith, but this does not translate into negotiating in good faith towards having a contract in the first place.

Empress Towers
•    The great question of contract law:  Is there a duty to negotiate in good faith?
•    The reason we have this case in our course is not just to differentiate mechanisms and formulae, but to also (though we might think it establishes and enforces duty to Negotiate IGF), what it does, strictly speaking, is to penalize a party that does not negotiate IGF
o    This does not establish a duty to negotiate IGF…
o    Flirts with what looks like an enforceable duty to negotiate IGF
o    This is not  a straightforward Contracts case.
•    Not A suing B for alleging breach of promise and demanding performance (money)
•    Empress Towers is the villian seeking the court’s assistance
•    Any remedy given by the court that is not a damanges remendy is by def’n an equitable remedy – must come to court w/clean hands.
•    SO the court here concludes that the landlord is not worthy to turn out the tenant, because of the way it has misbehaved – could be described as having acted in bad faith.
•    This is a negative conclusion – the landlord has not acted in good faith, therefore we won’t help him turn out the tenant.
•    Only by udnerstanding the pleading here – it is not a contracts case – it is application for ejection – write of possession.
o    The landlord’s failure to act in good faith is why the court gets away with this.
o    Really is not a precedent for enforcing the duty – how do we transfer the lack of performance into money still remains.  The writ of possession and equity here are key.

Tomorrow:
At 12:30 will have Q&A.  Room 2A.