Call us

Equity and Trusts

Order this Paper



There has been a significant divergence between the law of England and the law of Australia in relation to the scope of promissory estoppel since the decision of the High Court of Australia in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387.

Examine the differences between the Australian law and English law in relation to promissory estoppel. Do you think that English law should follow Waltons Stores in the development of promissory estoppel? Give reasons for your argument.

In your answer you should refer to English and Australian cases and academic commentary on the nature and scope of estoppel in equity as applied to promises that do not relate to land.

NOTE: Before you answer this question you should read B McFarlane, ‘The Limits to Estoppels’ (2013) 7 Journal of Equity 250.

Must have used at least 10 sources, including the above Case and Journal Article.

Order this Paper

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes