Hello, I am looking for someone to write an article on Australian Law: Promissory Estoppel. It needs to be at least 2000 words.

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an article on Australian Law: Promissory Estoppel. It needs to be at least 2000 words. If an individual makes a statement that causes a second party to act in a particular way, then that person will be “estopped” from denying the truth (Spence 1997). In order for promissory estoppel to hold, the promise or statement made must be reasonable. The statement must also be unequivocal. meaning that there is no element of ambiguity in it. In Australian law, the doctrine holds even if the parties did not have any preexisting relationship. The doctrine stipulates that it is necessary for the promisee to act to their detriment for it to hold. Promissory estoppel was established back in the 19th century in the English Law Courts. The case involved Metropolitan Railway Co v Hughes in the year 1877 (Cartwright 2006). The doctrine is especially important to the business world since it ensures that individuals are compensated if they incur losses when they act based on promises delivered by others. Australian law adopted the promissory estoppel doctrine in the case of Legione v. Hateley, 1983 (Nolan 2000). In that case, the plaintiff had sued the defendant after he rescinded the contract on the sale of land, which had already come to pass. The plaintiff had asked for more time to pay the balance he owed. Promissory estoppel usually applies in business dealings. It is meant to protect those who act upon statement and promises and in the process experience a disadvantage or detriment. In Australian law, the doctrine is enforceable under certain conditions. These may include dishonesty from the person who makes a promise, presence of a contractual relation between individuals, or where a person has a duty of information. It is important to note that there are some limitations to the doctrine of estoppel. As mentioned earlier, the doctrine holds only when the statement or promise made is of a factual nature. The other limitation is that the doctrine does not hold for promises meant to be fulfilled in the future (Cartwright 2006). Promissory estoppel In simple contracts, a person may be able to break an agreement and cause injury to others. This doctrine ensures that the promisee is held liable for his words. Promissory estoppel cases arise only when certain elements can be clearly identified in the court of law. These include responsibility, assumption, factual matter, reliance, intent, detriment, and unconscionability. The element of assumption specifies that the plaintiff must have assumed certain facts as influenced by the defendant. The defendant must the one responsible for causing the assumption. In addition, the assumption must be unequivocal. The assumption made must be enforceable by law. Assumptions which may not be actionable by law may not hold. Reliance stipulates that the plaintiff must have based his actions (or lack of) on the defendant’s words (Handley 2006). In order to hold, the defendant must have relied on a reasonable assumption from the defendant. Also, there must have been intended by the defendant for the plaintiff to rely on the assumption. Unconscionability is also considered. This is a situation whereby one party may suffer a significant loss based on certain outcomes (Handley 2006).