Equitable estoppel in 'subject to contract' negotiations

Silink, AJ

Equitable estoppel in 'subject to contract' negotiations

Silink, AJ

Permalink

Publisher:: LexisNexis
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Equity, 2011, 5 pp. 252 - 287
Issue Date:: 2011-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2011000870OK.pdf		260.93 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Silink, AJ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7011-719X	en_US
dc.date.issued	2011-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Equity, 2011, 5 pp. 252 - 287	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1833-2137	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/19004
dc.description.abstract	Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher was a watershed in the development of promissory estoppel in Australian law, recognising its reach to a representation of future intention from one party to another without the need for a pre-existing legal relationship between them. However, the scope for an equitable estoppel to arise from pre-contractual negotiations which do not result in a formal contract being executed, as in that case, remains unclear in certain respects. In particular, it is not clear whether or not a plaintiff seeking to establish an estoppel needs to have held a belief that the defendant was already bound by, or bound to enter into, the contract. On another view, it may be sufficient for the plaintiff to demonstrate that he or she was induced to assume that the contract would eventuate and then relied to his or her detriment upon that assumption, even if the plaintiff knew that the defendant had a right to withdraw from the negotiations. This article explores this uncertainty in Australian law about the nature of the assumption required to found an estoppel arising from pre-contractual negotiations which are said to be `subject to contract.	en_US
dc.publisher	LexisNexis	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Equity	en_US
dc.title	Equitable estoppel in 'subject to contract' negotiations	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	5	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.volume	5	en_US

Abstract:

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher was a watershed in the development of promissory estoppel in Australian law, recognising its reach to a representation of future intention from one party to another without the need for a pre-existing legal relationship between them. However, the scope for an equitable estoppel to arise from pre-contractual negotiations which do not result in a formal contract being executed, as in that case, remains unclear in certain respects. In particular, it is not clear whether or not a plaintiff seeking to establish an estoppel needs to have held a belief that the defendant was already bound by, or bound to enter into, the contract. On another view, it may be sufficient for the plaintiff to demonstrate that he or she was induced to assume that the contract would eventuate and then relied to his or her detriment upon that assumption, even if the plaintiff knew that the defendant had a right to withdraw from the negotiations. This article explores this uncertainty in Australian law about the nature of the assumption required to found an estoppel arising from pre-contractual negotiations which are said to be `subject to contract.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/19004