which induce reasonable reliance result in a remedy which protects the promisee’s expectation in full. It should be emphasised that where rules on promissory and proprietary estoppel are concerned, the remedy given is equitable and the justice involved in enforcing a promise will have to be placed in high regard. In some instances, the equities of a particular case may involve the enforcement of the promisor’s promise in full, but this will not always be the case. Thus, if the promisor has acted in a ruthless manner in seeking to deny the legitimate expectations of the promisee in circumstances which provide evidence of reasonable and detrimental reliance on the promise, the court may have little option but to enforce the promise in full. The controversy as to whether simple reliance or detrimental reliance is a requirement for the purposes of the different varieties of estoppel is also a matter which impinges on the question whether the promisee’s expectation interest is protected or not. If detrimental reliance is not a requirement in cases of promissory estoppel, as some of the relevant dicta suggest, it seems likely that the interest protected is the promisee’s expectation of performance of the promise made by the other party. However, if the view expressed by the Australian High Court in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher correctly states the guiding principle, detriment to the promisee is a requirement, but the promisor’s promise may be enforced only to the extent necessary to avoid the unconscionable and detrimental effects of a refusal by the promisor to honour his promise. Here, it is arguable that the reason for enforcing the promise is that the promisee is entitled to be protected against the denial of a future right.

DOI link for which induce reasonable reliance result in a remedy which protects the promisee’s expectation in full. It should be emphasised that where rules on promissory and proprietary estoppel are concerned, the remedy given is equitable and the justice involved in enforcing a promise will have to be placed in high regard. In some instances, the equities of a particular case may involve the enforcement of the promisor’s promise in full, but this will not always be the case. Thus, if the promisor has acted in a ruthless manner in seeking to deny the legitimate expectations of the promisee in circumstances which provide evidence of reasonable and detrimental reliance on the promise, the court may have little option but to enforce the promise in full. The controversy as to whether simple reliance or detrimental reliance is a requirement for the purposes of the different varieties of estoppel is also a matter which impinges on the question whether the promisee’s expectation interest is protected or not. If detrimental reliance is not a requirement in cases of promissory estoppel, as some of the relevant dicta suggest, it seems likely that the interest protected is the promisee’s expectation of performance of the promise made by the other party. However, if the view expressed by the Australian High Court in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher correctly states the guiding principle, detriment to the promisee is a requirement, but the promisor’s promise may be enforced only to the extent necessary to avoid the unconscionable and detrimental effects of a refusal by the promisor to honour his promise. Here, it is arguable that the reason for enforcing the promise is that the promisee is entitled to be protected against the denial of a future right.

which induce reasonable reliance result in a remedy which protects the promisee’s expectation in full. It should be emphasised that where rules on promissory and proprietary estoppel are concerned, the remedy given is equitable and the justice involved in enforcing a promise will have to be placed in high regard. In some instances, the equities of a particular case may involve the enforcement of the promisor’s promise in full, but this will not always be the case. Thus, if the promisor has acted in a ruthless manner in seeking to deny the legitimate expectations of the promisee in circumstances which provide evidence of reasonable and detrimental reliance on the promise, the court may have little option but to enforce the promise in full. The controversy as to whether simple reliance or detrimental reliance is a requirement for the purposes of the different varieties of estoppel is also a matter which impinges on the question whether the promisee’s expectation interest is protected or not. If detrimental reliance is not a requirement in cases of promissory estoppel, as some of the relevant dicta suggest, it seems likely that the interest protected is the promisee’s expectation of performance of the promise made by the other party. However, if the view expressed by the Australian High Court in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher correctly states the guiding principle, detriment to the promisee is a requirement, but the promisor’s promise may be enforced only to the extent necessary to avoid the unconscionable and detrimental effects of a refusal by the promisor to honour his promise. Here, it is arguable that the reason for enforcing the promise is that the promisee is entitled to be protected against the denial of a future right.