First of all, it is important for us to understand this case in term of the rule and law .When this Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] case occurred, the doctrine of promissory estoppel had play an important role in English and Irish contract law. Besides that, it also brought an impact in other countries and became an important reference for the cases in the future. Promissory Estoppel was derived from equity and it occur when a party that relies on the promise of another party is injured or damaged . When the other party to the contract alters his/her deeds in reliance of that promise, a court will likely apply the Promissory Estoppel doctrine in order to prevent the party from enforcing the original terms of the contract and it also allows a promise to enforce even without any consideration. There are two example of cases that I would like to discuss which are Foakes v Beer [1884] and Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 CoRep 117a. In the case of Foakes v Beer [1884], Dr John Weston Foakes is the appellant who owed Julia Beer which is the respondent a total amount of £2,090 19s after a court judgment. Julia Beer agreed that she would not take any action against Dr. John Weston Foakes for the amount owed if he promise to pay an initial total amount of £500 and pay £150 in every 6 months time until the whole amount was paid back. At the same time, Foakes was having a financial problem and he drew up an agreement for Beer to waive any interest on the amount owed. Julia Beer did sign the agreement and Foakes paid back the principal but not the interest. However, Beer sued Foakes for the interest later, claim that the agreement to forgive interest was entered without consideration. Therefore, no consideration ... ... middle of paper ... ... of promisory estoppel was founded by Denning J and he was attempt to get a fair solution to the problem of part payment and by doing that is to avoid the precedent that created by Foakes v. Beer . There are some cases that refer to High Tree Case which is Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329 where the courts prepared to apply the Promissory Estoppel principle from High Trees and avoid the Foakes v Beer to estoppel a creditor's right from full payment of a debt in such conditions. As a result, the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] has brought up the importance roles of Promissory Estoppel and had helped or protected many victims from being intimidate or barred from legal rights. Also, secured one’s interest by focusing on the promises and stop promisor from fully enforcing former rights against promisee.
Jones was party to the contract and mortgage together with Mrs Jones as surety for her husband, even though Mrs Jones was the actual owner of the property. This produced a legal consequence as it affected the appellants with a conduct on the part of the husband in relation to his wife which raised equities in her favour against the indication of a mortgage. The husband exercised undue influence on Mrs Jones to procure her signature to the mortgage which consisted of no consideration. The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant upon a contract to pay interest and principal contained in the mortgage over the property at Walkerville owned by Mrs Jones. It was understood that Mrs Jones executed the mortgage without understanding the effect of the contract and presumed various false misrepresentations. She argued that the mortgage which she s...
The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key stage in how the balance is drawn between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Law of Property Act 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overreaching and the machinery of conveyancing.Ref ?
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
Those who are to benefit from the covenant in today’s law can now be referred to by some generic description a description of class for example the 'owners of Hudson' however they must be in existence when the covenant is made and they must also be identifiable moreover the covenant must clearly be intended to be made with them as well. The cases of (White v Bijou Mansions) (1937)4 and (Amsprop Trading v Harris Distribution) (1997)5 are examples which illustrate and support the view of the LPA 1925, s.56(1).... ... middle of paper ... ... Benefits of a covenant may also be subject to express assignment at common law as long as it is not a personal covenant; it must also be done in writing and notice must be given to the covenantor under s.136 LPA 19259.
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,
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.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
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.
...‘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);
Trustees have onerous and complicated duties that require them to act for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. The precise content of these duties is the subject of on-going legal argument and debate and their scope is not always easy to define. Their breach can give rise to legal action. It is possible for a trust deed to vary or limit the trustee’s duties, but again the extent to which some limitations are effective is the subject of on-going legal debate. -There are costs to establishing trusts and many on-going associated costs.
HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
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 .
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 courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...