Ajayi v Briscoe [1964] 1 WLR 1326

Defendant had trouble with lorries that he had was using on a hire-purchase basis from Plaintiff, and Plaintiff had said that he could delay payment while the lorries were being fixed by the Plaintiffs and not in active service.

When Plaintiff sued Defendant for overdue instalments owed from the point when the lorries were available for use again, Defendant claimed equitable estoppel, in that they had not been given reasonable notice that the lorries were available for use again.

Privy Council held that promissory estoppel (PE) applied where one party, in absence of consideration, agreed not to enforce his rights.

• However there are 3 qualifications:

  1. That the party claiming PE had altered his position;

  2. That the promisor could revoke his promise once reasonable notice had been given;

  3. The promise was only irrevocable where the promise couldn’t resume his former position.

• In this case the position of Defendant had not been altered AND the lorries had been made available to him with reasonable notice.