Equity in contract law

M. Bryan, Simone Degeling, M. Donald, Vicki Vann
{"title":"Equity in contract law","authors":"M. Bryan, Simone Degeling, M. Donald, Vicki Vann","doi":"10.1017/9781108628648.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Much of equitable doctrine concerning contract law is now covered in contract law or property law subjects. Our coverage will therefore be brief. Equitable intervention into contract law can take one of four forms: (a) Equity enforces some promises which are unenforceable at common law. It may also modify or even prevent the enforcement of promises which would otherwise be enforceable at common law. These results are principally achieved by the doctrine of estoppel. (b) Equity sets aside contracts where the consent of a party to the contract has been impaired or vitiated by factors such as mistake, misrepresentation, undue influence or unconscionability. (c) Equity intervenes where the contract is substantively unfair, for example where it contains a penalty clause or a clause requiring forfeiture of property. (d) Equity provides remedies unavailable at common law (or, in the case of rescission, available on restrictive conditions) which: • enforce contracts (for example, specific performance or injunctions); • set aside contracts where consent has been vitiated (rescission); or • correct contracts where they do not reflect the mutual intention of the parties (rectification). The focus of this chapter will be on the first three examples of equitable intervention. Equitable remedies are discussed in Part B. Estoppel and promise enforcement Estoppels were originally developed as rules of evidence and some applications of estoppel (such as estoppel by deed, and judgment estoppel) remain evidential in character. The equitable estoppels considered in this chapter have outgrown their evidential origins. In all cases one party is prevented from enforcing a legal right, or from departing from an assumption relied upon by the other party, where it would be unconscionable to do so. This chapter focuses on two types of estoppel: common law estoppel and equitable or promissory estoppel. Proprietary estoppel is discussed in chapter 8. Common law estoppel This estoppel prevents a person who, by a representation of fact, has induced another to alter her position, from denying the fact as represented. Common law estoppel is not a cause of action. It alters the basis on which other causes of action may be brought or defended. It is confined to representations of existing fact, not to representations as to future intention. In Jorden v Money the plaintiff owed money to a solicitor.","PeriodicalId":193827,"journal":{"name":"A Sourcebook on Equity and Trusts in Australia","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"A Sourcebook on Equity and Trusts in Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108628648.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Much of equitable doctrine concerning contract law is now covered in contract law or property law subjects. Our coverage will therefore be brief. Equitable intervention into contract law can take one of four forms: (a) Equity enforces some promises which are unenforceable at common law. It may also modify or even prevent the enforcement of promises which would otherwise be enforceable at common law. These results are principally achieved by the doctrine of estoppel. (b) Equity sets aside contracts where the consent of a party to the contract has been impaired or vitiated by factors such as mistake, misrepresentation, undue influence or unconscionability. (c) Equity intervenes where the contract is substantively unfair, for example where it contains a penalty clause or a clause requiring forfeiture of property. (d) Equity provides remedies unavailable at common law (or, in the case of rescission, available on restrictive conditions) which: • enforce contracts (for example, specific performance or injunctions); • set aside contracts where consent has been vitiated (rescission); or • correct contracts where they do not reflect the mutual intention of the parties (rectification). The focus of this chapter will be on the first three examples of equitable intervention. Equitable remedies are discussed in Part B. Estoppel and promise enforcement Estoppels were originally developed as rules of evidence and some applications of estoppel (such as estoppel by deed, and judgment estoppel) remain evidential in character. The equitable estoppels considered in this chapter have outgrown their evidential origins. In all cases one party is prevented from enforcing a legal right, or from departing from an assumption relied upon by the other party, where it would be unconscionable to do so. This chapter focuses on two types of estoppel: common law estoppel and equitable or promissory estoppel. Proprietary estoppel is discussed in chapter 8. Common law estoppel This estoppel prevents a person who, by a representation of fact, has induced another to alter her position, from denying the fact as represented. Common law estoppel is not a cause of action. It alters the basis on which other causes of action may be brought or defended. It is confined to representations of existing fact, not to representations as to future intention. In Jorden v Money the plaintiff owed money to a solicitor.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
合同法中的衡平法
许多关于合同法的衡平法原则现在被合同法或财产法科目所涵盖。因此,我们的报道将是简短的。衡平法对合同法的干预可以采取以下四种形式之一:(a)衡平法强制执行一些在普通法上无法执行的承诺。它还可能修改或甚至阻止在普通法下可强制执行的承诺的执行。这些结果主要是通过禁止反悔原则实现的。(b)衡平法将合同一方的同意因错误、失实陈述、不当影响或不合理等因素而受损或丧失的合同予以搁置。(c)衡平法在合同实质上不公平的情况下进行干预,例如,合同载有处罚条款或要求没收财产的条款。(d)衡平法提供了普通法所没有的(或在解除合同的情况下,在限制性条件下提供的)救济,这些救济包括:•执行合同(例如,强制履行或禁令);•撤销已失效的合同(撤销);或者纠正合同中没有反映双方共同意图的地方(纠正)。本章将着重讨论公平干预的前三个例子。衡平法救济将在b部分讨论。禁止反言和强制执行承诺禁止反言最初是作为证据规则发展起来的,一些禁止反言的应用(如契约禁止反言和判断禁止反言)仍然具有证据性。本章所讨论的衡平法禁止反悔已经超越了其证据起源。在所有情况下,一方都被禁止执行一项法定权利,或被禁止背离另一方所依赖的假设,在这种情况下,这样做是不合理的。本章主要讨论两种类型的禁止反言:普通法禁止反言和衡平法或承诺禁止反言。第八章讨论专有禁止反悔。普通法禁止反言禁止反言防止某人通过对事实的陈述诱使他人改变其立场而否认所陈述的事实。普通法禁止反悔不是诉因。它改变了其他诉因提起或辩护的基础。它仅限于对现有事实的陈述,而不限于对未来意图的陈述。在Jorden诉Money案中,原告欠律师钱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Breach of trust: Defences and remedies The concept of the express trust Rescission and rectification Trustees’ duties and powers Trustee’s rights and liabilities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1