Contract Law

Acceptance

Contrast between the ordinary rule of acceptance (that acceptance is acceptance when the acceptance is communicated to the offerer – deals with time, not place), and the Postal Rule of Acceptance (Acceptance occurs when the acceptance is mailed).

When does the Postal Rule of Acceptance apply?  Obviously enough, when the post is involved.  Just because the post has been used, however, does not mean that it does apply.  The theoretical rule is that it applies when the offerer intended that the offeree’s acceptance would have the benefit of this rule of acceptance.

However, when will the court deem that the offerer has deemed this acceptable?  If the offerer made the offer by post (this makes it implicit).  Not all responses by post attach this rule.  Secondly, the courts have decided that the postal rule of acceptance will attach to an acceptance if use of the post in that context would not be unusual.

30 years ago, much contracting was done by post.  Somewhat less true today.

If the offeree was not intended to have the benefit of the postal rule of acceptance, then they simply do not have it.

Schiller v. Fisher. P 423.
•    Negotiating a land purchase.
•    Going back and forth, so the role of offerer and offeree changes.
•    Kingsmont makes final offer, by letter.
•    This offer expired on Sept 1.
•    P 424 – actual agreement with expiration date.  This is an express expiration (as opposed to implicit).
•    Covering letter said, “return one copy of the Agreement to us as soon as possible.”
•    In this case, what does the word “accepted” mean in “This offer is to be accepted on or before September 1, 1976”
•    Normally, the fact of the assent would needs be communicated to the offerer by this date.
•    Nu-towne signed on Sept 1, mailed Sept 3, rec’d Sept 8.
•    Under any of the normal rules of Acceptance, it was too late…
•    The counter-argument was that the words in the cover letter expressed the offerer’s view that an acceptable acceptance was different in this case.
•    The argument went that the covering letter, stating “as soon as possible” altered the “normal” rules of acceptance.
•    This also does not fall under the Postal Rule of Acceptance – the covering letter overrules both.
•    The trial judgement was in favour of Nu-towne.  Court of Appeal was in favour of Kingsmont (offerer).  SCC found in favour of Nu-towne.
•    Basically, the would-be purchasers, Kingsmont, obviously wants out of the contract.  We don’t know why – perhaps a better offer, who knows¿  They are using this legal pretext to try to get out.  A legal nitpick.

The rules of acceptance are about the “when” of acceptance.
Under the general rule, it is not acceptance until it is communicated.  Under the postal rule, it is when it is posted, whether the Acceptance actually arrives or not.

The When of acceptance also determines the “Where of Acceptance”.
When people form contracts inter-jurisdictionally (as in Canada, where we have 12+ jurisdictions – Contract law is the responsibility of provinces), it follows that sometimes the “Where” is very important – potential law suits depend on the where.
Not just relevant between different countries – also relevant, say, between NB and NS.
This is relevant because if one of the parties decides to sue the other, the plaintiff will typically decide to sue in his or her own home jurisdiction.
Courts have to decide whether they have jurisdiction over disputes.  In the Rules of Court of any jurisdiction, there are rules to guide judges in determining whether to accept jurisdiction over cases.  One of the rules is whether the contract was formed in the jurisdcition.
P427 – Ontario rules.

Cannot ascertain where a contract is made without first determining when it was made.  This often hinges on the rules of acceptance.

P427 - EASTERN POWER LTD. v. AZIENDA COMMUNALE ENERGIA AND AMBIENTE

A cooperation agreement assented to between parties.
Is a cooperation agreement an enforceable agreement at all?  This will be examined next class.
EP looking for loss of profits on a contract that was never carried out.
If Azienda had actually appeared in the courts in Ontario, it might have changed the case.  Did eventually, and argued to have the case set aside on the grounds that the courts there did not have jurisdiction over them in Italy.
The determining factor was whether the contract was formed in Italy or Canada (Ontario).
The medium is important here – acceptance was sent my facsimile.  Does the postal rule apply?
Is fax more analogous to personal communication or postal communication?
The court judged that it was more analogous to personal communication…
This hinges again on the presumtion that the offerer has not specified what constitutes Acceptance.  The ordinary rule of acceptance applied here.  This was in part formed on the basis that a fax is instant.
This case is about the choice of forum – which court has jurisdiction.
In Canadian jurisdiction, for instance, in a case between NB and AB, a court in NB may use NB procedural law, but AB substantive law.  Forum clauses can effect this.
There is a question of whose substantive law will be used.

There is a subtext here.  Considering forum non conveniens grounds here.  Takes into account whether a judge in Ontario would have to use Italian law, and how difficult that would be.

Must take into account wehther it is a convenient or not convenient venue for the trial.  The parties did not appear to be accustomed to International Trading.  They did not have a choice of law clause, nor a choice of forum clause.

Sometimes courts will overrule these clauses if it is believed that one party is using its dominance to subvert the other.  This could have come up in the Rudder case.

Choice of forum versus Choice of Law.  Distinguish.

Postal rule does not apply to couriers…  The Ordinary rule of acceptance applied to phone, fax, emails, and couriers.  It is a tightly confined rule.

Rudder v. Microsoft Corp.

Plaintiffs saying that one particular clause (choice of forum clause) should not be binding.

Want to sue MS in Ontario, because it is cheaper in Ontario (and perhaps more sympathetic).  Ontario, since this time, has likely tightened up their class-action laws.

Ask the judge to strike out this part of the Agreement.  Argue that they did not give assent to this clause though they clicked ‘I Accept’.

Judge disagrees.  The pl says that one should liken everything not currently on the screen to fine print.  Courts approach fine print in a rather hostile way.  Judge says that it literally is not fine print (all the same text).

This is a more straightforward argument – ‘I didn’t assent.  I didn’t assent because I didn’t know about it.  I didn’t know about it because it was “fine print”.’

If the parties have chosen their forum, then it doesn’t matter about rules of acceptance regarding jurisdictions.  The contract tells you what will be the forum.

For next day, look at Electronic Transactions Act of NB.  We will examine s16, but read it all.
Will look as far as Dawson.  This examines one issue in Carlill.  Read notes on 445-446.    We might also look at the uncertainty jurisprudence.  Read opening notes of next section of syllabus.

•    Contracts are a creation – they are legally enforceable obligations that did not previously exist (prior to the contract) [self-imposed obligations]
•    Through the free exercise of our wills we impose these obligations on ourselves.
o    Hence the derivative idea that if our will isn’t free (ex: intoxication or subversion) we are not bound – this is because it was not, in such situations, an exercise of free wills.
•    The basis of contracts is the freely functioning human will.
•    Issue of Intention:  A contract is the product of two intentions meeting.
o    How do we ascertain what the other party intends?
o    How does the court know?
o    The approach that courts take is to say (implicitly, by rulings) that they take the object approach.  The court does not ask what was intended.
o    Ex:  In Carbolic Smoke Ball, did not call the president of the company to the stand to ask what the intent was.  Rather, when one has to decide what the parties intended, the judge decides based on what the party would seem to have intended, to a reasonable observer.
o    We apply the test of reasonableness p481 – par7
o    We must understand the words in the way that an ordinary, resonable person would. P 442 – bottom of para2.
•    Note that we attribute that intention to the parties.
o    Still a product of the will of the parties.
o    We (the court) just get to say what that will is.
o    A person can end up “intending” what was furthest from their mind at the time of the agreement.
o    Do remember that even though the judge decides what was intended, it is imputed to the parties.
•    Headings (abbreviations):
o    Q.B. – Queen’s Bench
o    C.A. – Court of Appeal
o    L.J. – Lord Justice
o    M.R. – master of the roles (the keeper of the records – as result of adjudicature acts, made CJ of the civil cases.  The LCJ fulfilled the same role for the criminal cases.  Lindly M.R. spoken as, “Lord Lindly, Master of the Roles)

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
•    Mrs. Carlill suing, alleging a contract between the two.  Not on the basis of a contract of sale, but on a more elusive contract.
•    “The Law is like Prince Philip.  It’s always a step and a half behind life.”
•    What is there in this ad (and its context) that make it different from other ads (which usually cannot be construed as contracts).
o    An advocate would want to know more than just the words – would also want to know the context – type of newspaper (reputation of publication might colour the reading of the advertisement.  I.e.  A gossip rag versus the British Journal of Medicine).  A better lawyer will make such things relevant to the case.
•    What arguments could be made for the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.?
o    A reasonable person would understand that no company would intend to put themselves into this situation.  £100 would be an incredible amount of money.
o    If this is the offer, then the offeree is everyone whose eyes fell upon that ad.  Is it reasonable to assume that it offered it to the entire world?
o    Either there is no direct offeree, or there is no offeree
o    Company also argues that there is no acceptance.
o    A pamphlet could be viewed as a literay form.  Literary forms are prone to exagerration and hyperbole.
o    There were no instructions given in regards to claiming of the moneys.  In order to be claimed as an offer, something must be fairly complete.  This is essential information.
o    The word “reward” is not a contractual word.
o    Nudum pactum – naked agreement.  A considerationless agreement.  Non-enforceable [from page 444 – para 9]
o    “…any disease” is extravagant.  Tempered somewhat by “…by taking cold”

For Mrs. Carlill
What makes this ad different from other ads?  What makes it an offer?
•    The £1000 deposited into the account adds a ‘sincerity factor’.  It is a preemptive measure against skepticism, meant to convey confidence and promote sales.
•    The detailed instructions amount to an onerous path of acceptance.  The inference is that if this path is followed, then it constitutes acceptance, which means there must also have been an offer.
•    The Offer is made only to the subset of the world who:  buys the product; uses it while strictly adhering to the product’s directions; still contracts influenza.

When one examines a case, not necessarily looking for “rightness” or “truth”.  When analyzing the cases in the book, must look for the rationale and reasoning.  Must be able to make reasonable arguments based on the words.

•    P444:  One of the company’s arguments that were was no acceptance was that Mrs. Carlill did not send a letter, etc. to notify acceptance
•    The first the company knew about it was when the claim was made for the £100.
•    What of the idea that Acceptance is not Acceptance until communication is effected?
o    The judges say that the offeror is entitled to waive the terms of acceptance.
o    Here they say that Carbolic implicitly waived the terms of acceptance.
o    Say that she did accept at the point where she had completed the path of Acceptance and notified them of her claim.

Acceptance (when not in person): a general discussion
•    Contract law is based on old rules.
•    The paradigm for centuries was a contract of sale.
•    In the mind’s eye of trad. contract law, a contract takes place when people are interacting in person.
•    This became problematic once people began interacting by post.
•    In person, easy to say, “I accept,” or “I do not accept”, or to “hear” the silence (rejection)
•    However, by post, there are often complications along the way.  The letter of Offer could get lost on the way, or it may have arrived and been rejected by silence, or that the Offeree did write back, but it got lost on the way.
•    The Offeror, dealing at a distance, after having consigned a letter to the post and received no response, may be perplexed.  Likewise, the Offeree may be in a similar situation.
•    The silence on either end is perplexing.
•    The law has developed a rule that some say help, and some say hinder:
o    The Postal Rule, or The Postal Rule of Acceptance.
o    The ordinary rule of Acceptance is that it is not Acceptance until it is communicated (unless this has been waived by the Offeror)
o    Inter praesentes:  Present parties.
o    Communicated means communicated successfully!
o     The Postal Rule of Acceptance, where it applies, has Acceptance occur as soon as the letter of Acceptance is posted.
o    This applies even if the letter of Acceptance is miscarried enroute.
o    A clause in a contract can contravene this successfully.  The Offeror is the master of the Offer.  Ex:  “We don’t have an offer until your Acceptance reaches me.”
o    The Postal Rule of Acceptance puts the burden of interpreting silence, and therefore the risk of silence, on the Offeror.

Consideration:
•    Number of plausible ways to look at the different types of agreements that the law will enforce
o    In common law, we enforce almost none of these
o    Consideration:  The type of promises that we enforce end up coinciding with what would be looked at if we said we would enforce “serious promises”, etc.
•    Requires evidence of an exchange.  If an exchange occurs, it ought to be fairly conspicuous.
•    Has an elemet of formality.
•    Although it is at first glance eccentric and non-intuitive, it does largely yield the same approach as if we had taken a more intuitive approach.
•    Analytical vocabulary for consideration as a problem:
o    Must approach the problem in a certain way.
•    Who is the offerer, who is the offeree?
•    Analytical tools involved the vocab of promiser and promisee – not the equivalent of offerer and offeree, in any way shape or form.
•    They are incommensurate ideas.
•    At the formation of a contract, we can conceptualize the formation of a contract as an exchange of promises.
•    If each party is receipt of a promise from the other, then we have two promisers and two promisees
•    This is the formation perspective.
•    But by the time time has passed and we have entered litigation, only one of the orginally dual promiser/promisee relationships is relevant.
•    One promisee sues one promiser.  This is the promise that the promisee must show that they gave consideration in exchange for.
•    This is the promise that has allegdedly been broken.
•    This tells us what the relevant consideration was.
•    Must show the court that the relevant consideration was giving.
•    In a contracts case, the plaintiff is always the promisee; the defendant is always the promisor.
•    The relevant consideration is the one that the promisee must show that he provided to the promisor in exchange for his promise.
o    Our legal system only enforces bargains.
o    In our legal system, a promise of consideration is as good as consideration – this explains how offer/aceptance can result in a binding contract.  The law says that a promise of title (for example), in exchange for money (for example), is equivalent to having made the exchange.
o    There is virtually no reason, but the alleged reason is that the promise is as good as consideration, because the alternative fulfilling the promise is to be sued (and have the court impose payment).
•    Great conclusion:  The relevant consideration is the one that the pl. promisee must show that he/she promised to exchange with the def. promisor in exhange for the defendant’s promise.
•    Dalhousie – one cannot look at just anything and decide that it’s consideration.  Dal built buildings and hired teachers (in theory) on the basis of this pledge, and yet it was not consideration.
•    The point made by the scc is that Dal did not bargain the building of buildings.  It received Arthur’s promise, and then built buildings in response.  It did not exchange the building of buildings for the promise.
•    Cannot be made in reaction to a promise – that is not consideration.  “Here’s a plane ticket.”  “Wow.  Thanks.  I’ll give you some money.”  This is not consideration.  It is a reaction.
o    The essence of consideration is that it won’t be such unless it was exhanged in return for the promise.
•    P 357:  “To hold otherwise would be to hold that a naked, voluntary promise may be converted into a binding legal contract by the subsequent action of the promisee alone, without the consent, express or implied, of the promisor.”

Hamer v. Sidway
•    Is a case where one might at first thing that there was not consideration, but yes indeed there was.
•    The “assignee” in this case – a right is a species of property.  The nephew has sold his $5000 claim to some money-lender (likely for a much lesser value).
•    Family promises – not addressed, though this was between family, and at a family gathering where they had no doubt been drinking…
•    The facts of the case is not contested.
•    What is contested is the existence of consideration on the nephew’s part.
•    Uncle’s estate argues that he didn’t receive any benefit, but in actuality the nephew benefitted.
•    The law does not recognize “moral consideration” – could not argue that the uncle received the pleasure of seeing his nephew do well.
•    It is enough that the nephew gave up his legal rights based on the promise of his uncle.  This is enough of a basis to constitute consideration.
o    Consideration does not have to be a benefit traded to the promiser – it can be simply a detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other (p 258).
o    Can shorten the benefit concurred / detriment sustained formulation to simply detriment sustained.
•    There is not case where the defendant promisee did not sustain a detriment.  All benefit conferred cases are also detriment sustained.
•    In typical contracts case, what one gives up with typically benefit the other.  However, this is not a universal rule.
•    Can take a formula in currie v. Misa and collapse it into “detriment sustained”
o    This is broader.
•    P 261 is a little more concise.  It is, however, useful to take it to the next level.

Eastwood v. Kenyon
•    A case of the guardian versus the husband.
•    Sarah Eastwood left orphaned.  Guardian borrowed money to spend on her upkeep during her infancy.
•    At 21, Sarah got married.  First promised to compensate her guardian.
•    New husband then made the same promise.  Does not complete this promise
•    Must identify the promise being sued on.
o    The relevant consideration is the one that the the guardian bargained to the husband.
o    Only thing that the guardian could say is that he took care of Sarah during her infancy.
o    Could not have actually been made in consideration of the husband’s promise, as it pre-dated the promise by many years.
o    The thing which is consideration was sustained long before the promise being sued on.  Was already in the past.  Could not have been an exchange or bargain as the law demands.  The guardian is remedyless.

For tomorrow:  will return to Eastwood v. Kenyon – will do entire next section of outline. – 3 cases..

London Drugs
•    The bailor sueing the bailee in negligence (tort)
•    The most obvious way to invoke the contractual defence is to show that one is a party to the contract.
o    Must determine whether the employees were parties to the contract.
o    On what legal theory can we make the employees party to the contract?
•    3 standard routes:
•    assignment – wouldn’t work
•    agency – the most obvious route.  A claim that when the bailee entered into the contract with the bailor, it did so as an agent for the employees.
o    True that the employees would have to show that they gave consideration, but there would be nothing (theoretically) to stop the consideration of the bailee being shared by the employees – promising safety of the chattel.
o    If this was argued (we don’t know) the answer was likely that yes, it is poss. for the employer to contract on the behalf of the employees, (as well as itself), and for the consideration for both to be the same, but all depends on intention.
o    In this case, the court “must have” concluded (or perhaps was already clear to the lawyers) that it did not happen this way.
•    trust – would work, supposeing there was some factual basis to make the argument – again, intention.  Courts are reluctant to conclude that there is an agency or trust rel. without pos. evidence of intention.
o    This is because these arguments would get around many legal arguments.  It would, if acccepted easily, be a cure-all.
o    Could transform failed gifts (without delivery) into binding agreements by saying that the donor was agreeing to hold the gift in trust for the giftee.
o    Similarly, in the law of contrats could save many third parties from plight of third parties simply by making them parties – by saying that someone else entered into the contracts on their behalf.

•    3rd parties are non-parties.  They are usually helpless and hopeless.
o    In this case, the SCC changes their status – only in the employment context. (very important).
o    Ioccobucci puts much emphasis on the identity of interest between the employer and employee.
o    “relaxes” the rule.  Does not overthrow.
o    In order to relax the doctrine in this context, gives 2 criteria:
•    1)  Parties must have intended (either explicitly or implicitly) that the employees shold benefit from the limitation of liability clause.
•    Ioccobucci finds an implied intention.  This is not that they would be parties, but that despite not being parties, they may benefit from the clause – identity of interest
•    2)  Must be in the performace of their duties, and in performance of the duties contemplated by the contract.

Insurance issue:
•    Courts are aware that the provision
•    Charges the warehouse enterprise with a maximum liability of $40.
o    The warehouse is being charged a much lower premium because of this limitation of liability clause.
o    Places the onus on the bailor to obtain insurance coverage.
o    This provision is really about who has the burden of insuring.
o    It makes sense that the owner of the goods (who knows what’s in the crate, etc.) has the responsibility for insuring it.
•    Carriers have similar contracts.

What, in effet, is the bailor here trying to do?
•    Having benefitted from a low storage-rate, based on accepting the risk on itself, it is now trying to shift the responsibility back onto the bailee.
•    Trying to have it both ways.
•    The employees will not have insurance.
o    Many tort cases are in actuality about insurance.

Is this a good decision or a bad decision?
(in a tort-sense)
•    The real purpose of tort-law is to visit punishment on the tort-feasor, so as to force [them] to ‘clean up [their] act’
•    Hank and Dennis are off the hook…
•    Is this a flaw in the case?

Laing Property Corp. v. All Seasons Display Inc.
•    Not bailor-bailee (and bailee’s employees), but tenant-landlord (and landlord’s emloyees)
•    Contract in question is a lease.
•    Page 400 – Insurance clause.
o    The landlord wants to ensure that the tenant has insurance.  This ensures that if the tenant is a future tort-feasor, the landlord and other tenants can collect damages against them
o    Also in the landlord’s name so that benefits can be collected.
o    Also absolves the landlord from responsibility for any loss, damage, or expenses.
o    Waivor of subrogation.
•    Even if the landlord’s carelessness causes the mall to burn down, and the tenant’s insurance covers the tenant, and under common law the insurance company could sue the landlord for recovery, the tenant has waived this right.
•    The landlord’s employees’ negligence did cause the mall to burn down.
•    The tenant’s insurance company “sues everyone in sight”
o    Sues the landlord (fails), and also its employees.
•    In Greewood Shopping Plaze, the SCC denied the employees any rights under the mall’s contract with the tenant…
•    Here, the B.C. C.A. follows London Drugs as far as it can, and distinguishes Greenwood Shopping Plaza…
•    Greenwood:  Even though at the heard of both cases is a lease (and not a contract of bailment) and does not invoke employees, the B.C. C.A. says that in the lease here, it is a lease, but it has other services mentioned – says that the promotion services meant that the promotion service in question, which needed to be performed by employees (similar to services in London Drugs), meant that the employees were contemplated by the lease.
o    Then apply the two factors in London Drugs to relax the doctrin of privity vis-à-vis employees
o    Was there intention to include the employees?  Did they intend the waivor of subrogation to extend to the employees?
o    It is not express, so must look for implied intention
o    Page 404 – give the intellible basis for finding implied intention – para 99 & 100.
•    1)  Is there identity of interest between the employee and employer as to the performance of the employers’ contractual obligations?  Ie:  the services must be performed by the employee.
•    2)  Did the tenant, in entering into this contract, know that the services could only be performed by human employees?
o    Repeated at para. 115.
•    In all of these cases, the relaxation of the privity rule is for a defensive purpose.
o    It is to act as a shield for a third party.
o    In no case has the courts relaxed the privity rule to allow a third party to sue on a contract.
o    This would require contract.

Law Reform Act  http://www.gnb.ca/0062/pdf-acts/l-01-2.pdf
•    In a contract between A & B that promises a benefit to C, this says that C can sue on the A-B contract to which it is not a party.
•    A & B can prevent this if they say so in the contract.
o    4(1) – a person who is not a party to a contract, but who is intended to receive some peformance under it may enforce that performance by claim for damages or otherwise.
o    Here, can likely be express or implied.  If implied, would use the rule from Laing (or London Drugs).
o    4(3) – may change their contract, but if it causes any loss to C, and C has incurred expense or undertaken an obligation in the expectation of performance, C may recover loss from any party to the contract who ought to have known that the expenses would be or had been incurred or that the obligation had been or would be undertaken.
•    NB has briefly but substantially abolished the privity problem.
•    England’s approach, a few years later (page 411) also greatly abridged the privity problem, but took the opposite approach – did it in great detail instead of sweepingly.
o    This is only part of the English statute.
•    Not sure what effet this prosiion will ultimately have.  Relatively unlitigated as of yet – do not yet know its implications.

Review – Tuesday, 12:30 in 2A
Monday – also review.  Structured.

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.