ESTOPPEL

"The distinction presently applied between an evidential common law doctrine of estoppel, based on a representation as to an existing state of affairs, and a substantive equitable doctrine, based on a promise as to future conduct, is unsustainable because both doctrines create rights or modify their application. The strongest argument for unifying estoppel doctrines derives from the actual facts of Waltons Stores and Foran v Wight. The ambiguous (in one case) and multiple (in the other case) assumptions created by the respective representors demonstrated the irrationality of any distinction drawn by estoppel doctrine based on the temporal nature of the representation. The irrationality can only be removed by doctrinal reorganisation".

M. Bryan, 'Unifying Estoppel Doctrine: The Argument for Heresy" (2013) 7(3) Journal of Equity 209, 211?

Critically assess the argument for merging evidential common law and substantive equitable estoppel. In your answer make sure you refer to relevant Australian and UK case law. Would a merger of common law and equitable estoppel amount to impermissible 'fusion'?

How would i attack this question?