To begin with, the case as regards Richard and Ernie is related to the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, which is derived from Equity. According to this doctrine, if one party to the contract (promisor) makes a promise which the other party to the contract (promisee) acts upon, the promisor is estopped from going back on his promise, even though the promise did not provide any consideration. Theoretically, by this concept, Ernie should be estopped from …showed first 75 words of 1115 total…

…showed last 75 words of 1115 total…Richards P., (2004), Law of Contract, 6th edition, Pearson, Dorchester. -<Tab/>Elliott C. and Quinn F., (2003), Contract Law, 4th edition, Pearson, Dorchester. Cases Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr [1979] 1 QB 467 (CA) Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 D. & C. Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 (CA) Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 App Cas 439 (HL) Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd [1955] 1 WLR 761 (HL)