[extract] In my article, I also suggested that, applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the promisor (the inducing party) would be compelled to fulfil his promise because that was the only way to avoid detriment to the promisee (the induced party), notwithstanding that the promised act was disproportionately more valuable than the induced act. I noted that in contract law consideration need not be adequate and I argued, but by way of analogy only, that the promisee’s induced act should likewise not be required to be adequate.
My views, as summarised above, have been criticised by Michael G Pratt in Defining the Detriment in Equitable Estoppel: A Reply to Denis Ong (hereinafter the Reply).
I propose to make my Rejoinder to the Reply in two sections: (i) Defining the Detriment; and (ii) Induced Conduct of Promisee need not be Adequate.
Ong, Denis S. K
"Equitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment - A Rejoinder,"
Bond Law Review:
1, Article 5.
Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol12/iss1/5