How does the doctrine of promissory estoppel and consideration in itself premote fairness?
Isn’t the whole point of promissory estoppel to prevent unfair advantage being taken : it prevents people going back on promises that would cause some disadvantage to those who relied on them ? As the maxim goes ” it is a shield and not a sword” – it is a defence not a legal basis for a enforcing promise.That would still require consideration. If you also need to consider if/how the requirment for consideration promotes fairness.justice then the basic point is that it means that trivial promises are not legally enforceable.Otherwise I could sue you if you promised but then forgot to give me a lift to work tomorrow.I might recover a days pay from you.(The UK is already too litigious.) You will find more detailed discussion in any of the books delaing with Metropolitan Railways v Hughes and High Trees and might get some good ideas in Lord Dennings judgement.
