Land Law Coursework 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
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
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FACTS AND BACKGROUND This case arises from a November 14, 2010 fire, which damaged a Dunkin Donuts (the “Property”) owned and operated by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff’s had hired the Defendant to renovate the property. The fire occurred while the Property was closed for renovations, and the Defendant was in sole possession and control of the Property during the renovation. The fire originated at or near a gas-fired
Promissory estoppel cases arise from a doctrine of contract law, enabling a damaged party to recover compensation due to consequences of a promise that wasn't kept. Promissory estoppel aids the party who relies on a promise of another party and experiences loss because the promise wasn't honored. The purpose of promissory estoppel was to prevent the promisor from reneging on the promise they made, being unable to claim that the original promise, should not be legally enforced. Promissory estoppel deters
explain, (with reference to the case law) the requirements of a successful proprietary estoppel? To what extent are these requirements influenced by the equitable notion of unconscionability? This essay will explore the requirements for a successful proprietary estoppel as established by case law, as well as looking at the relevance of the notion of unconscionability in achieving a successful claim. Proprietary Estoppel is an equitable remedy, established by Chancery Court of King John, to help resolve
It is commonly accepted that an estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a person from negating or claiming a fact due to that person’s prior conduct. The doctrine of estoppel has been applied for years and different forms of estoppel have been established. For the purpose of this essay, I will predominantly concentrate on promissory estoppel in relation to the law of contracts. This essay will be approached by discussing the issues of pre-contractual liability, consideration, reliance and the
Introduction Main Body ~ The doctrine of promissory estoppel was established with the intention of preventing injustice. This may arise in circumstances whereby, party A makes an agreement with party B under contractual legal rights. However, party A may choose to go back on his original agreement as a result, the other party will seek to enforce their strict legal rights. The doctrine originated in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877). In the lease agreement, it required that the lessee to repair
code and legal definition. Retrieved from https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/uniform-commercial-code/ Promissory Estoppel 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). Promissory estoppel is when a person makes a promise to somebody and they end up back out of the promise. For example, "A promises B that
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. Jack’s Case A
If English law decided to abolish the doctrine of consideration it would rely on alternative methods such as promissory estoppel to replace the role of consideration in filtering out non-contractual agreements. The outcome of using alternative methods rather than consideration would impact on case precedency and it would change the formation of contracts as consideration is a key element in forming a contract. However since there has been legitimacy and applicability issues raised regarding the doctrine
What are the necessary requirements of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and discuss whether the notion of unconscionability alone lead to a successful remedy. Furthermore, examine how constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel allow the courts to stray from relevant statutory provisions and empowers judiciary to have more discretion where equitable remedies are queried. The doctrine of Proprietary estoppel is developed by the Chancery Court of King John to manage the problems inherent with
Issue estoppel operates to preclude the raising of an ultimate issue of fact or law in a subsequent proceeding that was necessarily resolved as a step in reaching the determination made in an earlier judgement. Such is the ratio that follows Ruf v General Motors
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
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
FIRST GROUND: THE NON-VARIATION CLAUSE PRECLUDES RELIANCE BY THE PLAINTIFF ON AN ORAL VARIATION TO THE CONTRACT 1. The non-variation clause should be upheld in the circumstances. 1.1. The contract contains a valid non-variation clause that states that, “No amendment or variation to this contract shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties.” 1.2. When the written contract was concluded between Flush Plumbing and Bridgetown on 28 January 2016, Flush Plumbing agreed to be
The English contract Offer and Acceptance General principles There are three basic essentials to the creation of contract which will be recognised and enforced by the courts. These are: contractual intention, agreement and consideration. The Definition of Offer. This is an expression of willingness to contract made with the intention (actual or apparent) that it shall become binding on the offeror as soon as the person to whom it is addressed accepts it. An offer can be made to one
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
Legally enforceable "A contract is a legally enforceable promise or set of promises. In other words, when promises have the status of contract, the contracting party harmed by a breach of the contract is entitled to obtain legal remedies against the breaching party." (Scheffel, Evan, and Jane P. Mallor, 2010. Chapter 9, Page 321) The Lambert v. Barron case showed us an example of what happens when a contract does not contain all elements to become a legally enforceable contract. Mr. Barron did
It seems to be a conventional wisdom that breaking rules that has been established and recognized is disgraceful and hateful and people who broke the rules are believed to be lack of reliability and responsibility, but is this always true and are they definitely wrong for doing so? In reality, sometimes breaking rules is a defence rather than an offence resulting from dishonorable desire, in which case breaking rules should no longer be blamed or despised, instead, rule breakers are eligible for
made. The payment or price may be a promise. However, there are some situations in which a non-contractual promise might not give arise of the right to sue for damages if it is proven as false but it can give arise to binding obligations. Promissory estoppel is a relatively new development to contract law but it is important doctrine where a non-contractual promise lacking consideration provided... ... middle of paper ... ...t, we should the statements in the contract and ensure all parties that