CLQ Vol36 No1 March-May 2022

Vestiges in promissory estoppel across the Antipodes: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada
By Stephen Puttick
 
In Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd, Lord Walker observed that the principles underlying promissory estoppel are an incident of the basic equitable jurisdiction to relieve against the enforcement of one’s strict legal rules where this would ‘shock the conscience of the court.’ However, his Lordship also observed that, though the estoppel is flexible and aimed at preventing injustice caused by vagaries of human nature, it is ‘not a sort of joker or wild card …’ The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada is but another of many examples of courts grappling to impose a degree of structure on a doctrine that might otherwise remain equity’s joker. This article considers various aspects — or, even, requirements — of a promissory estoppel claim as propounded by the Supreme Court of Canada.
 
 
Valve Corporation v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2017] FCAFC 224
By Eliezer Sanchez-Lasaballett
 
Valve Corporation v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (‘Valve’) is an appeal heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (‘FCAFC’) (Dowsett, McKerracher and Moshinsky JJ) upholding a decision from the Federal Court of Australia (‘FCA’) (Edelman J). The FCAFC found that Valve Corporation (‘Valve’) breached section 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’) by representing to Australian consumers that:
• consumers had no entitlement to a refund from Valve for digitally downloaded video games purchased from Valve via the Steam website or the Steam Client; and
• Valve had excluded, restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties of acceptable quality.
The above representations would contravene the prohibition in s29(1)(m) if it were not true that Valve’s Steam Subscription Agreement (SSA) and the Steam Refund Policy (SRP) effectively excluded the guarantee of acceptable quality in s54 ACL.
 
Contract law master class 2022: Part one
By Jeffrey Goldberger
 
Chapter 1: Time and termination: essential and innominate terms
Chapter 2: Remedies for actual or anticipatory breach and being ready willing and able to perform
  • Vestiges in promissory estoppel across the Antipodes: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada
    By Stephen Puttick
    page 3
  • Valve Corporation v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2017] FCAFC 224
    By Eliezer Sanchez-Lasaballett
    page 11
  • Contract law master class 2022: Part one
    By Jeffrey Goldberger
    page 20
  • Member Price: $0.00
    Non Member Price: $30.00
     
    Main File Type pdf