Parole Evidence Rule, Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - Assignment Example

Student name: Student number: Course code and name: Referencing style: APA LAW REPORT PART A In discussing whether Christie should pay the arrears of the rent that is claimed by Angelo, two issues can be drawn from the problem. The first issue concerns the effect of the oral agreement under the parole evidence rule and the effect of Christie representation under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. A leasehold agreement like the one signed between Christie and Angelo is a contractual agreement. For a contract to be complete there are ingredients which should be fulfilled; offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations and capacity. The problem question illustrates that these components have been fulfilled by the parties. Parole Evidence Rule The rule stipulates that once the parties have enshrined their terms of agreement in a written document, no extrinsic evidence should be accepted by the court to vary or contradict the terms of the written agreement. This rule at first seems to favour Angelo who has a rent agreement with Christie of $200 per week, thus Christie should not bring any extrinsic evidence to vary the terms (Mc Kendrick, 2009). The parole evidence rule acts as a great avenue to eliminate impunity in contracts as well as encourage certainty in contracts. The rule however is not an absolute rule since it is limited to the extent of its exceptions. The exceptions are justified since the strict use and construction of the rule would result in rigidity and occasion injustice in instances where fraud has been perpetuated by one of the parties to the contract (Treitel, 2007). The applicable exception that Christie can successfully rely to counter the written agreement is the acceptance of oral evidence to prove the existence of another existing collateral agreement. This is illustrated by the case of City and Westminster Properties Ltd v Mudd1 in this case the lessors and the tenant had at first entered into a written agreement that the premises could only be used for commercial purposes only. Later both parties entered into an oral understanding that the premises would now be used for residential purpose. Then a row arose that the tenants had started using the premises for residential purposes against the will of the lessors. The court held that the extrinsic oral evidence would be admissible to prove the existence of another collateral agreement (Treitel, 2007). This exception would definitely come to the aid of Christie who can adduce the oral evidence to prove the very existence of a collateral agreement between her and Angelo of $175 per week. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel This is defined to mean that if someone by his words or conduct represents unambiguously a stated state of affairs, the representor will fail to recover anything in the court of law if the representee relies on the said statement (Atiyah, 2006). The rule is drawn into attention by the words represented by Angelo to Christie that she should only pay a stated amount of $175 instead of $200. This rule is illustrated by the case of Central London Property Ltd v High Trees House Ltd2 the claimants had let some block of flats to the claimants in 1937 for an annual rent of £2500. However later due to the onset of the world war, the block of flats became deserted. The landlord entered into an agreement with the defendants that due to the prevailing circumstances, the defendants should pay a reduced rent of £1250. This representation was relied by the defendants and they started to pay a rent of £1250 forthwith. When the war came to an end, the claimants sought to recover the arrears strongly arguing that their offer was not backed by any consideration from the defendants. The court by a majority held that the claimants could not recover the arrears due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This rule too is supported by the case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company3the landlord had entered into arrangements with the tenants that they would make repairs within a six month period. Afterwards both parties started a renegotiation contract for the sale of the premises. The negotiation broke down at some point and the landlord sought to evict the tenants since they had not carried out the repairs of the premises. The court held that through implication and use of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the landlords were estopped from the forfeiture of the premises (McKendrick, 2007). The rule would be very important to Christie to prove that through her oral representation that the rent was $175 per week was estopped from claiming the $200 per week. Christie relied on the statement and the court does not need to be shown that she ought to have given any consideration to the contract. Conclusion Christie would successfully use the parole evidence rule and the doctrine of promissory estoppel to the detriment of Angelo arrears claim. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is used as a shield and not a sword. This essentially mean that Christie can make good the Angelo’s oral representation to show that Angelo by her conduct had opted not to rely on the new renegotiated contractual lease agreement of $ 200 per week. PART B The following issues come to the fore between the contractual agreement between Ali and Angelo. The first issue relates to the breach of contractual agreement, the tortuous liability of nuisance and the breach of the code of behaviour. Breach of Contract Any contractual agreement between the parties can successfully be brought to an end by a breach of contract. This occurs when one of the parties by their conduct or words and without any lawful excuse performs or performs defectively what they ought to perform as stipulated in their contractual agreement (Atiyah, 2006). There was an express agreement between Ali and Angelo that Angelo would provide a conducive environment for Ali since he was an immigrant from a conflict trodden environment. Though from the evidence it shows that Angelo has breached the terms as to maintenance of a quiet environment, breach of contract will not necessarily bring a contract to an end. This is illustrated in the case of DecroWall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd4 the court held that where there is a breach of contract, the parties are often given a wide range of options. The level and the extent o which the parties will make use of the options, depend on the seriousness of the breach. The court was of the view that even in instances where the parties had actuated a fundamental breach; the innocent party was not necessarily entitled to terminate the contractual agreement (Birks, 2004). A discharge though breach of contract gives the innocent party three main options; the first is that the innocent party is entitled to terminate any further performance that they had with the party in breach, secondly the innocent party can recover any damages due to any loss and finally the party in breach is denied any right to enforce any further contractual obligations. The rule of breach of contract thus always acts prospectively and not retrospectively (Treitel, 2007). Thus according to the case of Heymans v Darwin Ltd5 Ali can only be allowed to terminate the performance of the contract and not the contract itself. Tort of Nuisance Nuisance is often grouped into two; private or public nuisance. Public nuisance interferes with a particular class of people in the society. The remedy for public nuisance often lies in criminal prosecution rather than a civil suit. The case scenario between Ali and Angelo falls squarely in private nuisance rather than public nuisance (Dodson and Robert, 2002). In determining the existence of nuisance in a situation the court has to be convinced that the defendant is at fault, the plaintiff interest has been substantially interfered with and finally whether the conduct of the defendant is at all reasonable. Ali should successfully prove these three ingredients to make Angelo liable. Since nuisance is a civil wrong, the remedies available for the party are usually monetary damages and injunctions (Cleary and Joseph, 2002). The best order may be inform of injunctions to prevent the caravan tent tenants who are causing nuisance and inconvenience to Ali. Breach of Code of Behaviour Clause The first important issue that Ali has to successfully prove to rely on the code’s clause is whether this amounts to a condition or a warranty in their contractual agreement. A breach of condition in a contractual agreement entitles the innocent party to both terminate the contract and recover damages. A breach of warranty on the other hand does not entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract but only recover the damages. Angelo had categorically assured Ali that all the residents enjoy the peace and quiet. This goes to show that by Angelo not providing a conducive environment she was in breach of the condition provided by the contract through the clause on the code. An illustration of the breach of condition is the case of Lombard North Central plc v Butterworth6 where the parties agreed to contract on instalment payment under the hire-purchase agreement. When one of the parties failed to honour the instalments, the court was of the view that this amounted to breach of a condition therefore entitling the termination of the contract between the parties (Mc Kendrick, 2009). Conclusion Though Angelo seems to be in breach of the contract and code of behaviour coupled with the occasioning of the nuisance, Ali will find it a herculean task to recover the balance since he has delayed before instituting a cause of action. This was illustrated by the case of Allcard v Skinner7where the claimant was denied the recovery for the delay of six years. The court does not assist the indolent. Incase Ali decides to terminate the contract seeking the balance; Angelo can sue through the remedy of specific performance. This was illustrated in the case of Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll ltd (1998) the owners were entitled to a remedy of specific performance for their annual lease agreement (Atiyah, 2006). REFERENCES Atiyah, R. (2006). An Introduction to the Law of Contract, 6th ed. OUP. Birks, S. (2004). Undue Influence as wrongful exploitation, Law Quarterly Review. Cleary, J.W. (2002). Municipalities Versus Gun Manufacturers: Why Public Nuisance Claims Just Do Not Work. University of Baltimore Law Review 31. Dodson, R. D. (2002). Rethinking Private Nuisance Law: Recognizing Esthetic Nuisances in the New Millennium. South Carolina Environmental Law Journal 10. Mc Kendrick, D. (2009). Contract Law.8th Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave, Macmillan. Treitel, J. (2007). The Law of Contract. 12th Edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Read More