A. The leading case from the House of Lords confirming that the duration of a lease must be known at its commencement is Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body. In Lace v Chantler, although the tenant was granted a tenancy “for the duration of the war” it was held that this was not a binding fixed lease because “a term created by a leasehold tenancy agreement must be expressed either with certainty and specifically or by reference to something...”. Similarly, in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body, the House of Lords applied Lace v Chantler in ruling that the tenancy was void due to its uncertain duration, despite having the opportunity to dismiss this principle whilst using a number of cases that were inconsistent with this standard to support the decision. The fact that these cases …show more content…
Instead, the House of Lords used the Law of Property Act 1925 which states that “the only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are (a) An estate in fee simple absolute in possession; (b) A term of years absolute” to support the ruling. In this case, the parties did not intend for a possibly perpetual lease, rather, the letting was foreseen to be temporary and not a part of the negotiated terms.
B. Following Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body, the certainty of term rule was again reviewed in Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative. Although the housing agreement between both parties was said to be a monthly arrangement, and thus a periodic tendency, there were very few instances in which Berrisford’s occupancy could be terminated. Consequently, because of the limited grounds placed on Mexfield’s right to terminate, the maximum term of the agreement was judged void and therefore uncertain by the Court of Appeal. However, the Supreme Court held that although the lease was uncertain, under a common law,
(ii) in the case of the property acquired in the exchange, the 2-year period beginning on the date of such acquisition.
The dispute occurred in Victoria between a registered company, Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd ("the plaintiff") and an incorporated company, Nathan's Merchandise Pty Ltd. ("the defendant), where both parties operated their business. Two previous binding contracts (orders No. 58 and No. M57) were made in communications on 14th May 1951 and 2nd August 1951 respectively, each for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of 1,000,000 Hungarian .22 bullets. A consignment of 1,800,000 bullets for the above orders was dispatched from Sydney to the defendant by rail on the 12th February 1952 and was received by a carrier employed by the defendant in Melbourne who stored the bullets in the defendant's warehouse, where they resided for three days. Claiming that under the contractual terms, those bullets should only be delivered when requested, the defendant refused to take the delivery, and thus reconsigned the bullets back to Sydney by rail. On 3rd March 1952 a letter by the plaintiff's solicitor was sent out requiring the defendant to accept the "contractual goods" and that otherwise necessary steps would be taken to enforce the plaintiff's legal rights. On 6th March the defendant's solicitors responded by reasserting the stance that it had been settled from the start that delivery of bullets should be made only when the defendant required them, to fulfill its customers' orders. In addition the defendant's solicitors raised the further point that the location of delivery in Melbourne was inconsistent with the contractual terms.
La Trobe Capital & Mortgage Corp Ltd v Hay Property Consultants Pty Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 299
If there is no judicial remedy available (usually the court in question being the Supreme Court) then a reference would be mandatory.
In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s there were many issues that involved racial segregation with many different communities. A lot of people did not took a stand for these issues until they were addressed by other racial groups. Mendez vs Westminster and Brown vs The Board of Education, were related cases that had to take a stand to make a change. These two cases helped many people with different races to come together and be able to go to school even if a person was different than the rest.
Armanino LLP is the largest independent accounting and business consulting firm based in California with revenues of $155 million in 2015. They offer their services to profit and non-profit organizations. Armanino was founded in 1953, and it has nearly 600 employees. The company extended its global services to more than 100 countries through its membership in Moore Stephens International Limited - one of the world’s major accounting and consulting membership organizations. Armanino’s goal is to provide assistance in audit tax, consulting, and technology solutions to companies worldwide. The firm has won awards such as “Best of the Best” in 2015 from Inside Public Accounting,
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
In the 19th century, promissory estoppel was first introduced in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co , where Lord Cairns ruled that parties who have entered into fixed terms and then afterwards, by their own act or will, enter negotiations which influence the other party to assume that the stringent rights that were originally imposed will not be enforced or will be deferred, should be unable to reverse from this if it is inequitable for them to do so. This doctrine was resurrected by Lord Denning in Central London Property Ltd v High Trees House Ltd , where he expanded on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and ruled that where there is a promise intended to form legal relations and the promisor knew it would be acted upon and it was acted upon by the promisee then the promise made would be binding even with a lack of consideration.
It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
As a consequence of the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines within the UK’s unitary based system, company law had to develop responses to the ‘agency costs’ that arose. The central response is directors’ duties; these are owed by the directors to the company and operate as a counterbalance to the vast scope of powers given to the board. The benefit of the unitary board system is reflected in the efficiency gains it brings, however the disadvantage is clear, the directors may act to further their own interests to the detriment of the company. It is evident within executive remuneration that directors are placed in a stark conflict of interest position in that they may disproportionately reward themselves. The counterbalance to this concern is S175 Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) this acts to prevent certain conflicts arising and punishes directors who find themselves in this position. Furthermore, there are specific provisions within the CA 2006 that empower third parties such as shareholders to influence directors’ remuneration.
In the case of Yaxley v Gotts (2000) ch 162, the defendant, Gotts bought a building to Yaxley, a self employed builder and instead agreed him to have the bottom floor for renovating the other flats. Later, Yaxley argued that an oral statement had been made between them to reward him with ownership of the ground floor of the building, which Gotts failed to convey the title deeds in the name of Yaxley. The judge later found an oral contract had been made and permitted Yaxley, the plaintiff, to have the ownership in the form of a 99-year lease. The appeal court stated that the doctrine of estoppel should operate to modify the effect of the section 2 of the 1989 Act.
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
“The case of Carlill V carbolic Smokeball Company is considered a land mark in the English Law of contracts.”