Promissory Estoppel
What is the significance of Promissory Estoppel for part payment of debts?
Lord Denning's introduction of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in the High Tree's case was a direct challange to Foakes v Beers, a House of Lord decision which confirmed the ruling since Pinnel's Case that part payment of debts can never be satisfaction for the full amount owed. Lord Denning , took this principle from Hughes v Metropolitan Railway and applied to the High Tree case , laying down the principle that " when a promise which is intended to be binding , intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on , such promise should be binding so far as its terms properly apply" . It was held that in High Tree's case the landlord would not be able to recover the full amount of rental during the "war years" but they could revert to the origninal agreement for the period after the war years.
Lord Denning was fond of bringing in equitable principles into common law, which is a tad unfair coz when equity and law conflicts directly, equity prevails (Earl of Oxford Case).
Estoppel, both promissory and proprietary are equitable concepts, which need to have three elements: R - Representation
R-Reliance
D-Detriment
The LAw has always favoured creditors and businesses, hence part payment of debt is no good consideration. But in real life, a part paymetn is still better than no payment at all.