In South Australia, promissory estoppel can operate as a positive source of legal rights in appropriate circumstances, following the approach in Ausotel v Franklins, Ashton v Pratt and CPB Contractors v Rizzani De Eccher. However, the mere non-receipt of a promised benefit does not constitute sufficient detriment — the plaintiff must demonstrate reliance and consequential detriment beyond the departure from the representation itself. For underwriting agreements, a party that holds unexercised termination rights due to unsatisfied conditions precedent cannot be said to 'may be required to subscribe', even where the agreement remains on foot.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.