Abstract:
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it was established by Courts of the highest authority that both at Common Law and in Equity only a representation of existing fact would suffice to establish an estoppel. In Jordon v. Money (1854), 5 H.L.C. 185. a case in Equity, Contrary to a popular misconception - see Cheshire & Fifoot - Law of Contract (5th Ed. 1960), 82; Gray v. Lang (1955), 56 S.R. (N.S.W.) 7, 12. Lord Cranworth, L.C., stated: (1854), 5 H.L.C. 185, 213-214.
... I think that doctrine (estoppel) does not apply to a case where the representation is not a representation of a fact but a statement of something which the party intends or does not intend to do.
In Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. First National Bank of New Orleans, (1873), L.R. 6 H.L. 352. Lord Selborne was more forthright. Ibid., 360.