Research Paper on:
Canadian Legal Cases and Promissory Estoppel Not as a Sword But as a Shield

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
has relied upon a gratuitous promise may be able to enforce it and based on one definition by the Legal Information Institute is stated as "the doctrine allowing recovery on  a promise made without consideration when the reliance on the promise was reasonable, and the promise relied to his or her detriment" (LII, 2003). Promissory estoppel is used as a  defensive action and because of this is considered best used as a "shield" and not as a "sword" from a legal standpoint. Using Canadian cases which have utilized the promissory  estoppel tool, defensively it is much easier implemented and easier to realize when a case fulfills the requirements for promissory estoppel. Cases which have attempted to use promissory estoppel as  a "sword" have been less successful because often vital elements necessary for the fulfillment of promissory estoppel are not met such as agreement of action, equity, unambiguous consensus and consideration.  Throughout Canadian law history, promissory estoppel has been used frequently but found its origins of the Central London Property Trust v. High Trees  House Limited in 1947 K.B. in which is was determined that "essentially that where a representation is made by one party and relieve upon by another to that persons detriment,  the party making the representation will be estopped from following a contrary course of action" (Landry, 1997). Generally, the concept of promissory estoppel  has slowly evolved to be considered as a basic idea of fairness and equity. In other words in regards to overall action "one should not be able to say one  thing, have it acted upon, and then behave differently than first represented" (Landry, 1997). In regards to the Law of Contracts as outlined by Fridman, there are basically five essential