Wow! Thanks very much. The explanation and examples is so much clearer than that of this textbook i've been reading for hours.
@tonyb.37967 жыл бұрын
Are you a 1L too? If so, I share your sentiments. I have a Contracts exam in less than 48 hours. Good Luck.
@Fatmazekigray4 жыл бұрын
I wish thick law books could explain this any better than this. Well done. Thank you very much
@anastasiaxo13844 жыл бұрын
These videos save me!Thank you so much.
@justmwa1454 жыл бұрын
The best example. Thank you.
@nighty5166 жыл бұрын
Detriment is not required for promissory estoppel, only reliance is required. Detriment is necessary for proprietary estoppel. I am speaking in English law.
@gurulc6 жыл бұрын
Likewise, in English law, promissory estoppel is a shield and not a sword, which means that it can only be used as a defence.
@cyrineguessmy65635 жыл бұрын
@@gurulc hey , can u clarify more ?
@gurulc5 жыл бұрын
That means one can't make claims acting as a claimant based on promissory estoppel but he/she can use it as a defence when being sued.
@cyrineguessmy65635 жыл бұрын
@@gurulc thank u :)
@lbboardingb33565 жыл бұрын
Exams are coming
@RJghs306 жыл бұрын
Explained so well
@nd11063 жыл бұрын
Excellent presentation
@alisabart71782 жыл бұрын
Low-key thinking of the incident in which Nikocado Avocado bought a ticket to come to see Trisha Paytas after being under the impression that there was a plan to meet (he also reportedly bought gifts that he would give her upon meeting her).
@yasminhabibti7213 жыл бұрын
Awesome explanation. Thank you.
@faathee87406 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your work
@sarweenabdulla62433 жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot for your effort
@MikeJones-Who4 жыл бұрын
Does this apply to a vehicle loan that was taken out? Party A signed as the primary owner and Party B signed as the secondary owner who promised to pay the loan in its entirety. Two years later, Party B turns the vehicle in (still not paid off) and gets a new vehicle. Party A takes no part in the tuning in of the vehicle and demands for the car be released. Vehicle is released and Party B refuses to continue to pay, leaving Party A with a broken promise and a car note.
@sirbalsac4 жыл бұрын
Party A and B jointly share the property. However one party functionally seizing it would have to refund the other's investment. Contract law isn't a factor here, it'd be property law. QED, the car is worth 20,000, party A put in 2k, party B put in 8k. Party B returns the car and reinvests the equity into a new car. Party A seizing the car would be obligated to pay 8k to party B, and would then be responsible for the remainder of the loan.
@dcnzel4 жыл бұрын
cheers for the video aye
@kimjinhwan77922 жыл бұрын
「あなたの動画はとても良いですし、メッセージがた
@leshiaaweekeshart13663 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this.imformation
@aneelamody99393 жыл бұрын
Thank you 😊.
@timothylim34625 жыл бұрын
Hi morning, I’m confused on something. I thought promisorry estoppel cannot be used in action to sue the other party? In other words, can only used as shield and not sword. I’m confused on this point
@MsMegan77775 жыл бұрын
You are right. This video is wrong. PE can't be used to get someone to do something that they weren't bound to before. It can only be used to stop someone from insisting on the rights they previously had. If there was an assurance to the person that those rights would not be enforced and they relied on that promise, then PE can apply.
@incub85 жыл бұрын
Hello, @@MsMegan7777. Would it be correct to suggest that how PE was applied in the case shown in this video was based on USA Common Law and not British-Commonwealth Common Law? In Canada, I always understood that PE can only be applied as a shield and not a sword.
@js012a4 жыл бұрын
You are right in relation to English law. USA law must be different?