2. 外语
  3. In January, 1992, Wang rented a house for three years at a monthly rent of ＄1,000. Wang became unemployed in August, 1992 and wa

In January, 1992, Wang rented a house for three years at a monthly rent of ＄1,000. Wang became unemployed in August, 1992 and wa

admin2011-01-16  73
问题  In January, 1992, Wang rented a house for three years at a monthly rent of ＄1,000. Wang became unemployed in August, 1992 and wanted to move out. Jone then orally agreed to reduce the monthly rent to half. In January, 1993 Wang was informed to pay the amount of rent he had paid before.
Could Wang insist on paying the half rent until expiration of the contract?
Give reasons for your answer.
选项
答案It is a general rule in common law that a contractural promise is may legally binding if it is made in return for another promise or an act. Otherwise, the promisor shall not be bound by his promise. Aiming to prevent unfair consequence due to withdrawing of the promise by promisor at some situations, the doctrine of equitable estoppel or promissory was developed: a promise made by the promisor intended to create legal relations and to be acted upon by the promisee, may be enforced by the promisee, despite that he gave no consideration for it, if in fact he relied upon it to his detriment. The promisor is prevented (estopped) from denying his promise. The court applies this doctrine only when the following has been proved: (i) he has altered his position by relying on the promise; and (ii) his former position cannot be resumed. In Hirachand Punamchand v. Temple (1911), where the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff moneylenders. His father wrote to them offering to pay part of his son’s debt in satisfaction of the whole, and enclosing a cheque for the sum offered. The plaintiff cashed the cheque, then sued the son for the balance. It was held that their claim failed, they must be deemed to have accepted the cheque in full satisfaction. (Other cases like: Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High House Ltd., 1947; Ajayi v. Briscoe Ltd. 1964 are also accepted) If we apply these principles to this problem, Wang had altered his position, not moving out by paying a sum of remedy for termination of their contract but to keep it due to relying on Jone’s promise of reducing to half of the rent, and this situation could not be resumed. Therefore, applying consideration hero would be unfair to Wang. Wang could apply for equitable remedy of the doctrine of estoppel, and only pay the half rent until the expiration of the contract.
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/OtYd777K
0

中级（法律）

原金融专业英语（FECT）

金融英语（FECT）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)