Contract Law

Foakes v. Beer (missed last class – interviews)
•    Why doesn’t the ruling in this case come under pre-existing duty?
•    Why do we need a separate rationale?
o    We do not need the rule from Foakes v. Beer – equally analysable under pre-existing duty
o    Separate island of jurisprudence all to itself, very similar to pre-existing duty rule
o    Could be under Stilk v. Meryk
•    Is is a subset of a preexisting duty, but we treat it separately for historical reasons.

•    Why doesn’t the hypothetical situation whereby one promises to write off a $100 debt in exhange for $50 fall under the rule that we saw earlier (stilk v. merit)
o    S & M was a legal dispute
o    The answer is that the s & m type scenario was about a compromising legal dispute
o    Whereas, in our hypothetical situation, there is no legal dispute.  One is not claiming that one does not owe the money.  One is simply admitting that one cannot pay it.

Given the similarity between the Foakes v. Beer and Stott v. Merit Investment Corporation, would the way around exhibited in williams v. roffey brothers be gotten around the same was as in Stott v. Merit?
o    Williams v. Roffy brother scenario takes some of the sting out
o    Why is it not equally applicable to the Foakes v. beer scenario?
•    It would be.
•    The English courts have addressed this.  They have said that one cannot use a Williams approach to defang the approach of Foakes.
•    This is because Foakes is a decision of the house of lords, and it would take a decision of that same house to overturn it.
•    Further, the argument goes that if Williams got one out from under Foakes, there would be nothing left to Foakes.
•    Whereas, in Williams, all three judges said they were not overturning Stilk v. Merit.
•    Why won’t a Williams argument apply?  (Consideration can be found in practical benefit…)
o    The answer is because the courts have said that it won’t.
•    Williams v. Roffy Brothers says that a prac. benefit can be consideration
o    applies only if the parties already have a contract
o    though limited in this way, nevertheless, is a precedent of great interest.
o    The natural question is, “what can Canada do?  Will they follow?”
•    If Gilbert Steel were decided today, would it go another way?
•    Under Quicklaw, search “Roffey” and see what the cndn courts do when they cite Williams v. Roffey Brothers.
•    ***Look and see whether it is being followed in Canada.  This may be important for midterm.
•    Will it stand as a great precedent of our time, or will it be forgotten?
•    P. 309, para 1. – “The case not being one of a composition with a common debtor, agreed to, inter se, by several creditors. “
o    If the first creditor who gets judgment against a credit gets 100%, then the fifth creditor (for instance) may get nothing as there is nothing left.
o    Sometimes, creditors will agree amongst themselves that none of them will actually execute a judgment against the debtor.  They will take the entire assets of the debtor and divide them up.
o    Earl of Selborne says that this arrangment is binding, but cites it in a way that it would seem to be an exception to the Foakes v. Beer way, but does not mean it in this way.  In fact means that there is consideration in this arrangment.
•    This agreement between creditors is called a composition.
o    Note on page 310 para 3 – there is a point that the “chequeness” is not consideration unless it is a bargained-for chequeness.
•    Nothing is consideration unless it is treated as consideration – unless it is bargained for.  Read this over to clarify.
o    P 312 – contracts with a 3rd party.

Criteria to select promises worthy of legal enforcement
•    Promises given in return for something which the law is prepared to regard as consideration.
o    This is narrower than what ordinary people might view as consideration.
•    Promises under seal (will look at later).

•    Does our legal tradition enforce promises merely because the promisee has relied on them?
o    This is against theory, but may exist practically.
•    We now come to a series of cases where this appears to be the scenario.
o    What is going on will look like promise enforcement, but the question is whether it is really promise enforcement, or protecting resonable reliance.
•    Is it harm prevention as opposed to promise enforcement?
•    With promise enforcement, all the attention is on the promisor.
•    With harm prevention, all the attention is on the promisee.
o    The case that discovered the possibility that there might be something that strongly resembled considerationless promise enforcement was Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House ltd.
•    Lord Denning, prior to becoming a Lord.  He is a Justice here – trial judge.
•    One of the few trial cases in our text.
•    Friendly parties – just want an answer, which they will be willing to accept.
•    In this case, one of the two parties (plaintiff) have become insolvent, and is in the hands of a receiver.  The receiver has a fiduciary duty to try to take in as much money as legally possible.
•    99-year leases are quite common in England.
•    The landlord sues for 2 things (which may be the same thing, 2 ways)
o    Full rent prospectively
o    Full rent retrospectively.
•    First thing we look for is consideration (to enforce the landlord’s promise to let them pay ½ rent).
o    The promissee did rely on this promise
o    Consideration:  The tenant did pay the ½ rent, but that is not consideration – that falls under pre-existing duty.
o    There is no seal on the changed contract.  No change vis-à-vis the change.  No consideration vis-à-vis the change.
o    Denning J. does something revolutionary while saying that he is not doing anything revolutionary.
•    Claims to be following jurisprudence.
•    He makes up something and attributes it to the widom of the past.
•    Estoppel – this is the leading case of estoppel.
•    What Denning J. is faced with is a situation where the promisor made a promise to the promisee, the promisee relied reasonably on the promise, and now the promisor wants to break the promise.
•    The landlord gave the tenant a representation of the future – we call this a promise
•    This case is about whether to enforce a promise.
•    Because it is a promise.  Does not fall under trad. Jurisprudence of estoppel.
•    Allows us to make some enforcement.
•    (para 1 on page 316) – “With regard to estoppel, the representation made in relation to reducing the rent was not a representation of an existing fact.  It was a representation, in effect, as to the future, namely, that payment of the rest would not be enforced at a full rate but only at a reduced rate.  Such a representation would not give rise to an estoppel, because, as was said… a representation as to the future must be embodied as a contract or be nothing.”
•    (Para 2) “There have been a series of decisions over the last fifty years which, although they are said to be cases of estoppel, are not really such.  They are cases in which a promise was made which was intended to create legal relations and which to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made, and which was in fact so acted on.  In such cases the courts have said that the promise must be honoured…  As I have said they are not cases of estoppel in the strict sense.  They are really promises – promises inteded to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”
•    “In each case the court held the promise to be binding on the party making it, even though under the old common law it might be difficult to find any consideration for it.”
•    Continues – is this promise enforcement, or is it something that looks like promise enforcement, but is not?
•    Is there a meaningful difference between ordering a defendant to keep their promise, and ordering a defendant to act consistently with their promise.
•    Para 3 & 5 address the question (which we would never have to address with consideration)
•    How Binding?
•    The tenant had the audacity to argue that the promise was for the entire 99-year lease.
o    Lord Denning says no.  Will enforce the promise to some extent, but not that extent.
o    Says that the promisor can take back their promise to this promise

Reset.
•    It may be that the promisor can take back their promise
•    Estoppel-based promise-enforcement differs.
•    Promisory-estopple, or equitable-estoppel.
o    A different category of estoppel.

Next class:  Down to D & C Builders v. Rees

On TWEN is last year’s midterm.  Address questions 2 & 3 by way of sample.

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..

Consideration
•    Promises – the law does not enforce promises per se.
o    Promises of gifts are not enforceable.
o    The law considers the spirit of altruism rare.
•    What criteria should we use to categorize the subset of promises that attract legal enforceability?
o    What would be a sensible way to do this?
o    The promises which the law should be designed to enforce should be “serious promises”.
•    Non-trivial
•    Or seriously-intended
o    This is approximately the majority approach of the world’s legal systems.
•    The majority of the world uses the civil system
•    In Qc. law, there is a proposition that goes back to Roman law, that a cause is enforceable (from Latin, causa).
•    This is a straightforward approach.  “We’ll enforce where there is a good reason.”
o    This is intuitive.  It is not a technical rule – aligns with the ordinary instinct of ordinary law.
o    This is not the approach that we take.
•    What criteria should be use to categorize the subset of promises that attract legal enforceability…?
o    Could go from the intuitive approach
o    The Roman approach used formality.
•    If ppl want to know that their arrangement is enforceable, then we could have (in our legal scheme), a way to formally attach something to their promise…
•    The act of “attaching” something to the promise could act as a signal that it is meant to be enforceable.
•    Ex:  ‘A promise in writing could signify that a party meant for it to be enforced.’
•    Ex:  Signature – could make it so that something would have to be signed to be an enforceable promise [problem with this is that every contract, in order to be enforceable, would require this – even simple transactions between vendor/purchaser]
•    “stamps” – issued by gov
•    shaking hands, spitting and shaking hands
•    In Rome, the parties stood facing one another, and recited to one another the terms of the contract. Stipulatia
•    Ex:  “I _____, take you _______…”

•    We do not work under this system
o    Exception:  Promises made under seal are enforceable.  This is a hold-over of (at least) the middle ages.
•    In order to give, must have intention (animus) and transfer.
•    (as well as offer, acceptance, and consideration).
o    Some things are not susceptible to manual tradition.
•    Shares (Choses in action) – how does one give a share?

•    Primarily, we no longer use “seals”

•    Scenario:
o    Person A promises person B a plane ticket to Florida.  Person B goes out and makes purchases for the trip, racking up expenses of $150.  Person A’s circumstances change, and the offer for the ticked is revoked.
•    What if Person B sues Person A for the $150, to put them back into the circumstances where they were (it is obvious that they would lose a suit for the cost of the ticket itself).
•    The court, for the most part, does not recognize even reasonable reliance on promises.
o    Our legal system does not enforce any promises that are not contained within a contract.
•    [American language]  The law enforces bargains – something for something – a trade-off.

•    In order to approach these cases, must recontextualize
o    If the problem in front of you has nothing to do with offer/acceptance (more to do with whether there was consideration [I offer you my car for $1000; I accept]), then this type of analysis will get you nowhere.
o    Will need to identify a consideration problem, which will lead to an abandonment of offerer/offeree.
•    “I promise to convey title to my car to you if you pay me $1000.”  “I promise to pay you $1000 if you convey to me the title to your car.”
•    Same sale transaction constructed as an exchange of promises.
•    In a contract, both parties are promisers, and both are promisees.
•    When we try to analyse whether there was consideration, we need to use the language of promisers/promisees.
•    Consideration is what you paid to the other side in exchange for the other side’s promise.
•    Can view the formation of a contract as an exchange of promises.
•    By the time the parties get to court, one party is suing the other (at least).
•    Plaintiff and defendant
•    Plaintiff is always suing in his/her capacity as promisee, and the defendant is defending in his/her capacity as promiser
o    By the time we get to litigation, only one of the original two-fold promiser/promisee relationships is relevant.
o    The one that is relevant is the relation whereby one allegedly promised something to the other, and broke that alleged promise.
o    In a contracts case, every defendant is an alleged promise-breaker; every plaintiff is a disappointed (alleged) promisee.
•    Mu    st understand which of the two promises is broken.
•    All contract litigation (besides the odd exception, of course…), it will always be promisee vs. promiser.
•    “Why is the plaintiff in a contracts case always suing as promisee?”
•    “Why is the defendant in a contracts case always defending in their capacity as promiser?”

Dalhousie College v. Boutilier
•    Boutilier does promise Dalhousie $5000.
•    Dalhousie, however, does not promise Boutilier anything.
o    Yes, they built building, etc., but they did not promise Boutilier that this would be in exhange for this $5000.
o    They promised him nothing – it was not a bargain; not something for something; not an exchange.
o    Even if these buildings, purchasers, etc., had been made on the strength of his promise, that does not retroactively convert his promise into a contract promise.
•    Subscription form:  Does Boutilier not say, “In consideration of the subscription of others…”?
o    Why is this not consideration?
•    His motivation is irrelevant.  Motive is not consideration.
•    They did not promise to rely on his $5000
o    Mere reliance
o    Only kind that matters is “bargained-for reliance” – if they had bargained their ability build buildings for his $5000, it might have been consideration.
•    The difference is how the parties treated the building of the building.
•    Dal did not do it in exachange for his $5000.
•    He promised, and they reacted by building the building – this is not  consideration.
**Nothing is consideration, unless the parties have handled it as consideration.**

“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.” P 357 para 6.

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.

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd. v. Maher

Facts:

•    Negotiating towards a lease
•    Waltons leads the prospective landlord to believe that there will be a lease.
•    As such, the landlord does what they have to do get the new building up on time for Waltons
•    New building 40% completed when Waltons walked away.
•    Landlord sues, alleging in effect that Waltons promised to enter into the lease, and that they should be estopped from walk away.
•    Council for Waltons held that there was no promise there.
•    Council had to construct the promise – this was done satisfactorily
o    However, looked like a mere promise
o    Reliance was non-bargained for.
o    Looks like Dalhousie
•    We are in the realm of promissor estoppel.
o    Though cast widely in High Trees, was reigned in in Combe v. Combe.
o    Promisee here is suing to have the promiser esoptted
o    Offensively…
o    Court acknoledges all of this
o    Promissory estoppel usually used as defensive equity, not offensive.
o    Concern is that if we allow ppl to sue on promises alone, then what is left of the doctrine of consideration
•    If we allowed ppl to use estoppel offensively, then in effect, we could be doing the very thing that Dalhousie was accused of doing – allowing the recipient of a promise to retrospectively convert what was meant to be a gratutious promise into an enforceable promise just by relying on it.
o    Would be getting into the business of enforcing gratuitous promises.
•    Will we require the doctrne of consideration or a seal to enforce promises offensively, or is there some other basis?
•    Para 22
•    Normally say, as per combe v. combe that we will not enforce promises offensively
o    However, these is a small area of jurisprudence where we do enforce promises based on nothing more than reasonable reliance.
o    Promissory estoppel
o    If the promisor has promised the promissee an interest in land (real property) and the promissee has relied on this to their detriment, then the law can enforce the promise.
•    They look at the U.S.
•    Second-class enforcement
o    Promise enforced to the extent that the promissee relied on it
o    Only so much enforcement as necessary.
o    Get the value not of the [ticket to florida].  Get the value of the [preparations one made for the trip].
o    In the U.S., the restatement (NOT A STATUTE) is accepted in some states.
•    Accepted generally that one can sue on estoppel.
•    Para 25, 26
o    Start making the point – (26) – make an important point
•    Having just said that in the U.S. they allow Ps to sue on the basis of nothing but an estoppel, they then observe that the words of s. 90 of the restatement, the substance is of promise enforcement.
•    Whereas they say in the Anglo-Australian context that estoppel is not about promise-enforcement, but about injustice prevention (prevention of unconscionability).
•    So does vary in its emphasis with American contract theory.
•    Links U.S> restatement of estoppel with obsession with consideration, and have in common promise enfircement.
•    Even estoppel section cast as if it were about promise enforcement (even though as we look at it (through high trees) that we look at the victim, not the promisor’s promise).
•    It is not that we so love promises that the law will enforce promises no matter what – it is that estoppel has at its root (for us) injustice prevention.
•    Then say something new:
o    Say that promise breaking itself is not unconscionable
o    Say that even the promissee’s reasonable reliance, per se, does not create unconscionability.
o    Why is this not unconscionable?
•    People in our culture just know that the law does not enforce gratuitous promises.
•    People know that reliance on such a promise is at one’s own risk.
o    Something more is required…
•    Making distinction between the sword and the shield
•    In trad. Estoppel, all one needs is a promise intended to be relied upon and relied upon.
•    Now say that to use estoppel offensively need more than this.
o    Whether they intended to create two sets of criteria for estoppel, they seem to have done so.
o    What is this ‘something more’ that is required.
•    In this case, say there are two special factors
o    1)  Sense of urgency because of the tenant’s timeline
o    2)  The tenant’s inaction when it knew the landlord was acting on the promise.
•    Say that the inaction acted as encouragement
•    In this case, doing nothing effected doing something.
•    Note para 25 – “The object of the equity is not to compel the promisor to fulfill the promise, it is to avoid the detriment which, if the promise goes unfulfilled, works to the detriment of the promissee.”
•    Conclusion:
o    The court does estop the tenant from denying that it has a lease with the landlord
•    (though of course they do not have a lease)
o    here, estoppel used as a sword.
o    “Is this just one of many semi-interesting cases which languih unnoticed, or is this considered to be important in the common law?  What is Waltons status in Canada?
Has enough time passed that we can conclude that the idea went nowhere?
Will want to, before the exam, reasearch the case – not whether it has been followed.
Is the hurdle so high (the two conditions) for unconscionability that the cases have just not come up since?

Formality
•    page 226
•    Begin with famous article by a famous U.S. legal realist from 1930s.  German origins.
o    Fuller – we have snippet of introduction
o    Taxonomy on variety of purposes of legal formalities.
o    Not all formaities serves all of these purposes
o    Identification of the three poss. functions
•    Formalities:  No set list – anything that the law requires you to do to have a binding contract:
o    Writing
o    Witnesses
o    Written
o    Handshake
o    Handshake with witnesses
o    Gov. licence, like a stamp
o    A seal
o    Witnessed by a notary
•    Fullers 3 functions:
o    Evidentary:  Something like a written contract generates physical evidence of what the agreement was.
•    A handshake, on the other hand, does not have much evidentary functions (unless, perhaps, it was in front of witnesses)
o    Cautionary:  the more elaborate the formality the law requires one to go through, the more the compeltion of it causes a person to acknowledge the importance of their agreement.
•    Ex:  If the law requires that an agreement be made in front of a lawyer, enforces the seriousness of the legal agreement.
•    To the extent that the formality is awkward or ritualistic, the parties have time for second-thoughts.
o    Channelling:  There could be the sort of formality which, if envoked, would tell the parties that they had the sort of agreement which the courts would enforce.
•    Suppose there were a way to make a gift promise enforceable – such as going to the gov. for a certain type of stamp.
•    A stamped contract then would be channelled into the realm of enforceability
•    We have this in regards to seals.
•    Seals put promises into the realm of enforceability.
•    The only formalities in the common-law tradition are the seal, and writing.
•    The seal is a positive formality.
•    If one seals one’s promise, the promise is destined for a certain outcome – it adds a positive result.
•    Writing is a negative formality.
o    In a certain narrow set of contracts, the law says that the contract can’t be enforced unless it is written.  This is negative – WON’T be enforced unless it is written.
o    The seal is the pos formality.
•    In other words, the common-law tradition puts very little emphasis on formalities
o    Fuller argues that the doctrine of consideration in itself is a type of formality.

Seals
•    A SPECIAL contract
o    This is the term
•    Also called a formal contract – in distinction from a normal contract – a “simple contract”
•    A deed – an instrument under seal.
•    The major significance is that the promissee of this promise has alonger period under which to bring action to enfore the promise, than if the promise were not under seal.
•    Under ordinary promise, have 6 years
o    BUT, under seal, in most provinces (except Ontario), the victim has 20 years with which to sue.
o    Good for the victim, but inconveneintly long – memories fade.
•    Rarely see lawsuits after so long
•    What constitutes a seal?
o    In the past, a seal was a blob of melted wax, into which something was impressed to make it obvious that it was one’s seal.
o    No seal is a seal unless it is one’s personal seal.
o    A blob of wax beside someone’s name is not a seal unless it is adopted as a seal and can be identified as such.
o    A thumbprint would do it.
•    Modern approach:
o    To have it pre-printed on the form – probably intended that the client be handed a seal to put on the document – can be purchased at stationary shops
o    Question arises:  What if the client does not do this?  What if the area to place the seal is there (page 250 – suggest L.S. is the latin for the place for the seal)
•    Is this then the seal?
•    This would defeat the cautionary function.
•    This comes up in the courts, and they go back and forth on the answer.
•    Question is, is this the client’s seal?
•    Doen’t count unless it is someone’s seal.  The client must have done something to adopt it.
•    Argument that signing beside it is enough for adoption
•    Courts reluctant to come to an answer on this.
•    Note recommendations of Ontario commission
•    In Foakes v. Beer
o    Hint at a side-light of the seal – if the parties made a contract under seal, it was the law that both sides could nt vary the contract, except by another contract under seal.

Next day:  will look at writing requirements just notes page 385