It has been asked in the given scenario to evaluate Neuberger LJ's approach to the relationship between the doctrines of the constructive trust and proprietary estoppel. To evaluate that, it is necessary to explain the definition of the constructive trust and proprietary estoppel . Constructive trust is basically a form of trust which has been created by the courts where the defendant has dealt with proprietary in an "unconscionable manner", such as stealing or possessing it via fraud etc. Millet LJ in Paragon Finance Plc v DB Thakerar & Co (1998) EWCA Civ 1249, referred it as a trust which arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property to assert his own beneficial interest in the property and deny it if another. It also arises when an owner ignores the rights of another person with an interest in that same property. Proprietary estoppel is a legal principle which prevents someone, who has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs from illegally going back on the words which led to their belief. It arose in the case of Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862), where a son spent £14,000 on building a house on the land with his father approval and promise that he would be in charge of that land but later found out that his father did not leave the property to him in his will. Lord Westbury held that the freehold int he land had been transferred to the son. However, four elements must be proved in order to claim for proprietary estoppel which are : a) An assurance, b) Reliance on that assurance, c) Detriment, d) Unconscionability . In the case of Yaxley v Gotts (2000) ch 162, the defendant, Gotts bought a building to Yaxley, a self employed builder and in... ... middle of paper ... ...d acts tot heir detriment on the basis of trust. But there are some contradicting grounds between the two. Constructive trust is generally created by the action of the parties whereas a court order is mandatory in proprietary estoppel. Furthermore, the nature of constructive trust is to identify the true beneficial owner of the land and it reflects the nature of a person's interest but the court makes the minimum award which are essential to proceed for justice under proprietary estoppel, which allows the courts to provide such remedy fits to the facts of the case and the remedy is not necessarily be similar to the share in the beneficial ownership of the land to a monetary award. However, judging from the points referred above, it can only be said that the two doctrines are still to a certain extent although the courts yet need to resolve other different traits.
Moreover the class of the original covenantees can be extended to people who were not in the original deed under s.56(1) Law Of Property Act 19252. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 enables the benefit of a contract to be given to those who are not parties to it.3
A promissory estoppel is present if one party makes a promise to the other knowing that the other will rely on it. If the other party relies on it, there would be an injustice if the promise was not enforced. In the case of Sam and the chain store, unless the chain store had already paid him and/or spent money in anticipation of the arrival of the 1000 units, promissory estoppel would not be present since they did not rely on Sam’s promise. However, since the text reads that the chain store wrote a letter to Sam demanding that the 1000 units be sent, it implies that they had relied upon that
“Agency relationships are formed by the mutual consent of a principal and an agent.” (Cheeseman, p.487) Our book goes on to cite the Restatement (Second) of Agency,
A Quistclose trust arises when money is paid to a recipient for a specific purpose, if that purpose fails the money is held on trust for the payer. It mostly arises in insolvency cases where the proprietary rights have to be established. However, this type of trust has been thought to be inconsistent with the traditional trust principle. Many have suggested the Quistclose trust must be treated as any other fully fledged security device taking into account the protection it offers the payer on insolvency and should therefore be registrable. This essay critically analyses the concept of Quistclose trust, whether it differs from the resulting trusts.
Promissory estoppel is when " one person might rely on a promise made by another even though the promise and the relevant circumstances are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that a contract exists" (Mallor et al., 2015, p. 333).
There is uncertainty surrounding the law in regards to the ownership of property and proprietary estoppel. This paper will deal with these issues by analysing two cases that involve these questions. It will first address Jack’s case and whether the two objects in question are chattels or fixtures; then, it will examine a Laurence’s case and whether he can rely on proprietary estoppel or not. By dealing with the two cases, this paper will clarify questions of what constitutes a chattel or fixture, and in what situations proprietary estoppel may apply.
trust responsibilities or the lack thereof in Navajo Nation v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1547 (2009). Nebraska Law Review, 89538.
Gillett v. Holt The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is an equitable intervention in cases where the enforcement of legal rights is considered by the courts to be unconscionably unfair. The essence of the doctrine arises, as defined by Snell: '[when] one (A) is encouraged to act to his detriment by the representations or encouragement of another (O) so that it would be unconscionable for O to insist on his strict legal rights.' (McGhee, 2000, p.637) In the absence of a written agreement, estoppel acts as an evidentiary tool with which the courts can help ensure fair interaction in property dealings. Proprietary estoppel is a method by which informal arrangements are recognized as being capable of creating proprietary interests.
It is a concealed arrangement made between a testator and the trustee and is made to come into force after death. A justification for ST is the ‘dehors the will’ theory which means the trusts arise outside of the will - a inter vivos trust. Its purpose is to benefit another individual that hasn’t been written in the formal will. The testator will leave property to the trustee under the will with the understanding that they will hold the property as a gift for which they will then later on be expected to pas...
Terence Etherton (2008) – Constructive trusts: a new model for equity and unjust enrichment. Cambridge Law Journal
...posit is made with the whole, with no individual. The contract is equal, for each gives all. No one reserves any rights by which he can claim to judge of his own conduct” (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 568).
...ll as property (Enquiry, p28)." From this point of view, such actions would be wrong.
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
...‘Consideration: Practical benefit and the Emperor’s new clothes’ in Beatson and Friedmann (eds). Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 1995);
trust – where the trust is administered in Mauritius and a majority of the trustees are resident of Mauritius or where the settler of the trust was resident in Mauritius at the time the instrument creating the trust was executed