Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:28

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Roffey Bros

I take the Seavey, Cardozo and Australian line in regard to estoppel, so that the doctrine is not about enforcing promises per se but about remedying justified detrimental reliance (like Hedley Byrne). On this view, accepting estoppel does not conflict with the requirement that to make a promise binding fully qua promise you need consideration.

Cheers,

Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law &
Cassels Brock LLP Faculty Fellow in Contract Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

David Wingfield wrote:

What happened to promissory estoppel?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index