Estopple & Quantum meruit

Estopple Can be used as a legal doctrine preventing a person from asserting his/her strict contractual rights where this would be unfair in the circumstances (as a shield): Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd. Estopple can also be used to prevent a party from asserting that there is no contract if that would be unfair (as a sword) (thus allowing the party to obtain some legal remedy (albeit not damages for breach of contract)) As a sword: Waltons Stores (interstate) Limited v Maher the following criteria must be met: a) Party A assumed or expected that a particular legal relationship would exist between him and party B b) Party B encouraged Party A into adopting that assumption or expectation, c) Party A has acted or abstained from acting due to that assumption or expectation, d) Party B knew of or intended the performance or abstention of those actions, e) Party As action or inaction will cause party A detriment, and f) Party B failed to avoid that detriment by fulfilling the assumption or expectation, or otherwise. Notes:
A& B: Assumption may have been merely a matter of hope: Chellaram & Co v China Ocean Shipping Co B: Failure by Party B to correct party As assumption or expectation: Corpers No 664 v NZI securities B: must encouraged an assumption that it is a binding contract, not just an agreement: Powercell Pty Ltd v Cuzeno Pty Ltd E: Detriment has been defined as a position of material disadvantage if the departure from the assumption was permitted: Thompson V Palmer E: Detriment is not measured from the time of the assumption, instead it is measured from the time that the defendant attempts to renege on the promise : Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Ltd

Remedies: If an estoppels is established, the court will not award damages for breach of contract, because an estoppel does not create a contract. Instead, the remedy yielded by the estoppels is the avoidance of the detriment. The court will shape its order according to what is proportionate to the detriment: Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen, and the Prima facie remedy is make good the assumption, to be reduced as just in the circumstances: Giumelli v Giumelli. <what is the specific likely specific remedy? E.g. reimbursement for costs>

Quantum meruit is a legal claim for the reasonable repayment of services. Often used to claim for an implied contract for services which have been performed. In Pavey & Mathews Pty Ltd v Paul, The honourable Deane J said an action for quantum meruit does not require proof of a contract, but is a claim to restitution arising as a result of accepting benefits from performance. This is further supported in Day v. Caton, Boardman v Phipps & Sumpter v Hedges.

Unjust enrichment Interpretation applied by Gaudron J in Trident v McNiece is that unjust enrichment is concerned with restoring benefits, not enforcing promises. Has the defendant been unjustly enriched in the circumstances?