Pinnel's case and promissory estoppel

Literature review:

Pinnels oddball was criticized of its unfairness judgment because Pinnel could go covering on his promise that he had made to Cole.

There were 4 important criticisms responded to this dominate which were stated by Hickling. The first criticism is that The happen Of Pinnels Case is a dictum. However, it had been used for 200 to 300 age until Dening J developed the promissory estoppel.

Next, it is also criticized as it illegally extended the doctrine of consideration from creating a contract to modifying a contract. The doctrine of consideration wont consider the past intention simply The Rule Of Pinnels Case wont consider the future intention.

However, in Khourys & antiophthalmic factor; Yamounis views, the court modified the doctrine of consideration and never revoked the rule in 200-300 years were because at that place was too much hesitation in the future and the court was forced not to act on the doctrine.

Thirdly, it is criticized, as it will only produce ridiculous results if the promiser and promisee are left to put their own values on things, as consideration can be anything.

Lastly, The Rule Of Pinnels Case is criticized, as it has no relation with commercial practice. It is because a dishonor value of thing can substitute the higher midpoint total of payment.



It is better for a creditor to receive a lower sum of money or to let the debtor facing bankruptcy.

In conclusion, although there are weaknesses in The Rule In Pinnels Case, it isnt all useless because the judgment held at that time was forced by the environment and uncertainties.

Synopsis:

Consideration is one of the essentials that constituted a contract. It has to move from the promisee, however, it convey not move to the promisor. A past consideration isnt acceptable. In the Pinnels Case, the court held that...

If you want to get a full essay, vagabond it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper