Wikiversity

Wikiversity Law Reports/Waltons Stores v Maher

< Wikiversity Law Reports
This is a Wikiversity Law Report.
High Court of Australia

TL;DR: Promissory estoppel provides a cause of action, not just a defence, i.e. it is a sword as well as a shield. Promissory estoppel can arise in the absence of pre-existing contractual rights.

Facts

edit
  • M, the owner of land with a building on it, was negotiating with W, a retailer, for W to lease the land. If the lease was to go ahead, M would need to demolish the existing building and build a new building suited to W's needs. M and W were negotiating the terms of the proposed lease.
  • W led M to believe that the current draft lease was acceptable to it.
  • Unknown to M, W had decided not to execute the lease yet so as to keep its options open.
  • M began to demolish the existing building and began to build the new building.
  • W told M that it no longer wished to enter into the lease.

Held

edit
  • Having led M into the erroneous assumption that W intended to execute the lease, W was estopped from denying it was bound by its implied promise to execute the lease.

Other publishers' references

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity_Law_Reports/Waltons_Stores_v_Maher&oldid=1671399"