About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

13 Melb. U. L. Rev. 475 (1981-1982)
Je Maintiendrai v. Quaglia - Promissory Estoppel in Australia

handle is hein.journals/mulr13 and id is 485 raw text is: When exhibits are sent into the jury room it is understood that the jury are at liberty to inspect and experiment with them in any reasonable manner which occurs to them.40 If it is not carefully explained to the jury just what 'reasonable' experimentation might consist of and a warning issued to them of the shortcomings of any experiment they might perform (as the trial judge did here) the injustice to the defendant becomes more (not less) likely. . It is inevitable that juries will experiment with exhibits taken with them into the jury room, be it a comparison of handwriting samples,41 a house-breaking implement or a weapon. The risk of evidence being manufactured is ever present, even if jurors are expressly warned to confine their deliberations to the evidence put to them in court. Only by as full and careful summing up by the trial judge as is possible, including detailed instructions as to possible tests on exhibits, can haphazard experi- mentation and confusion be avoided. Jurors certainly have the common-sense to devise their own tests in the jury room but they cannot know what status such tests have at law (and what weight to accord them in reaching a decision) unless given much needed assistance by the presiding judge. MARK DARIAN-SMITH* JE MAINTIENDRAI v. QUAGLIA1 - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN AUSTRALIA Action by landlord for arrears of rent - Defence of promissory estoppel raised - Whether doctrine of promissory estoppel recognized in Australia - Whether the promisee must show detriment incurred. In 1972 Lord Hailsham made the prediction that a time would come when the courts would need systematically to explore the doctrine of promissory estoppel and to reduce it to a 'coherent body of doctrine'.2 Despite the contribution made by the Privy Council in Aiayi v. Briscoe3 significant uncertainties have continued to plague those who seek to determine the ambit of the doctrine in England. In Je Maintiendrai v. Quaglia4 the necessity for systematic exploration and coherent statement of principles arose in the Supreme Court of South Australia. In three strong and carefully reasoned judgments the Court seized this opportunity. THE FACTS The respondent was the tenant of a shop. The appellant was the lessor. The original written lease which commenced in March 1973 was for a three year term at a rent of $197 per month. A new three year lease was executed in July 1976. The rent was increased to $278 per month and provision was made for quarterly rises commensurate 40 (1979) 21 S.A.S.R. 596, 598. This passage was expressly approved by Street C.J. in R. v. Kozul [1980] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 299, 302. 41 For example see R. v. Tilley [1961] 1 W.L.R. 1309 and R. v. O'Sullivan [1969] 1 W.L.R. 497 (C.A.). B.A. (Hons.); A Student of Law at University of Melbourne. 1(1981) 26 S.A.S.R. 101. 2 Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd S.A. v. Nigerian Produce Marketing Co. Lid [1972] A.C. 741, 758. 3 [1964] 1 W.L.R. 1326. 4(1981) 26 S.A.S.R. 101. Case Notes 475

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most