Bookmarks by Hena Babu https://padlet.com/hb748/Bookmarks Made with the strength to succeed en-us 2020-11-08 11:28:18 UTC 2020-11-08 11:49:32 UTC hello@padlet.com james and andrew agreed to the fact that james would do the household chores. there is an enforceable contract between them . in the case of "pinnel v cole" [1602] there was a certain expetion . according to the exception if the debtor substitute a gift in full satisfaction of the debt or a different method of payment. also according to lord denning it must be inequitable for the promisor that is andrew to go back on his promise. Resurrected by Lord Denning in Central London Property Trust v High Tress House Ldt (1947), denning stated that the landlord was estoppel from going back on his promise stating that promissory estoppel arises when it must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise.It's inequitable and unjust for Andrew to go back on the initial promise he made to James as the injured party (James) relies on the promise. hb748 https://padlet.com/hb748/Bookmarks/wish/901413784 2020-11-08 11:28:39 UTC https://padlet.com/hb748/Bookmarks/wish/901413784