1. In Gilbert Steel Ltd. v. University Construction Ltd. (1976), O.R. (2d), 67 D.L.R. (3d) 606 (Chapter 4, page 185), the Court of appeal dismissed the plaintiff's action for damages for breach of an oral agreement.

Why did they hold that there was no consideration for the oral promise to pay an extra amount for the steel, and why did the doctrine of "promissory estoppel" not apply?

Your analysis must include a discussion of the different points of view of Canadian and English Courts regarding the parole evidence rule; the meaning of "consideration"; promissory estoppel; and the application of equitable (as opposed to legal) doctrine.

Which result do you prefer (promises without consideration - binding or not?), and why.