Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Promissory Estoppel - Coggle Diagram

- - - - In Virulite Stuart-Smith J appears to consider that the judgment of Arden LJ in Collier may be an example of his identified confusion in the use of the terms ‘suspensory’ and ‘extinguishing’. Extinguishing should be interpreted to mean that the balance on the debt is gone forever and cannot be revived. This should apply only to payments due in the period of the suspension (or estoppel) and not to the general right itself.
      - However, treating promissory estoppel as extinguishing rights would elevate the effect to the equivalent of consideration and would then be a direct threat to Foakes v Beer.
      - Statements by Arden LJ in Collier v P. & M. J. Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, [2008] 1 WLR 643, at [39] and [42] suggested that the doctrine had the effect of extinguishing the creditors right to the balance of the debt. However, his reliance on obiter statements by Denning J in High Trees suggest that he may be referring to the balance of the arrears as having been extiguished as Denning J was clear in High Trees that the general right to full rent payments was revived when the bombing stopped.
      - Statements made by Lord Denning in Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr [1979] QB 467, at pp. 484–5 and in D. & C. Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617, at p. 624 suggesting that it might be impossible in some circumstances for the promisor to go back to the strict rights under the contract. However, these comments can be explained if Lord Denning was referring to individual periodic payments such as the rental payments during the blitz in High Trees