Part payment/estoppel help

anfield bound

Any help with the following contract situation would be greatly appreciated:

X (a hotel chain) contracts Y to install a system and provide training to staff at a cost of €100,000.
X pays €50,000 up front.
Y installs the system.
In the meantime, X is struggling financially and can not afford to pay the remaining €50,000-contacts Y, explains situation and says can only afford to pay €25,000.
Y replies that the training will now not be provided, but, despite Y still suffering a significant shortfall, "nothing more would probably be done about it".
X is concerned that without the training, the system is useless and his company may suffer further financial difficulty-pleads with Y to reconsider, but gets no reply.
X then offers a free, all inclusive one-week stay at any of its hotels for those who provide the training.
Y does not reply, but provides the training. The free stays are availed of and the €25,000 is paid to Y.
Y then takes a case for the remaining €50,000.
Advise X


I don't think there's any issue with showing that the offer of part payment was accepted by Y via their conduct in completing the training.
No mention of the €25,000 only being held "on account" etc.

I also don't see any problem in showing the provision of the free stays as an extra element that would allow for payment of a lesser sum (Pinnel's, Drogheda v Rev Fairclough etc.)

Any remarks are welcome, but I'm specifically curious as to whether there's an estoppel angle here? I know the "nothing more would probably be done about it" comment by Y is ambiguous, but taken with the completion of the training, is this enough to satisfy promissory estoppel, or does the fact that this statement was made PRIOR to the offer of the free stays mean it is considered to be completely separate to what transpired after the free stays offer was made?
If that's the case, would the completion of the training by Y after X's offer of free stays OF ITSELF be enough of a representation to satisfy estoppel?
I feel like the ingredients are there, but would really appreciate any input (on any aspect; whether the part payment was accepted, whether the stays count as an extra element seeing as they confer a benefit on Y's STAFF rather than Y as a company.....anything that springs to mind!)
Long read, I know!

234

Most posters here don't like helping students with their homework.

The framework for your answers will be in your reading list. If some of the issues in the problem don't have easy answers it's because they aren't meant to. Identify the contentious issue and say why it is difficult to apply the law, why the result is unclear, etc.

This particular question actually seems disturbingly familiar.