Bank v Carrick 13. Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd v Sabherwal 14. City of London Building Society V Flegg Statutes : 1. LRA 1925 S. 70(1)(g) ‘’Critically assess the contribution that the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppels makes to modern land law.’’ During the Norman conquest in 1066‚ William the Conqueror instead of rewarding his followers with money and titles‚ he in-turn awarded them titles to lands and‚ in turn depleting the native-landholders of their
Premium Property Common law Real property
contract law The many doctrines of promissory estoppel If one concept in the early part of the contract law syllabus is difficult for the law student to digest‚ it is promissory estoppel‚ usually learned alongside the doctrine of consideration. This article tackles this tricky topic by dissecting promissory estoppel. by Adam Kramer‚ Lecturer in Law‚ University of Durham Promises are special in our society because there is a societal or moral convention that allows a promisor to be treated as
Premium Common law Contract Contract law
“In Thorner –v- Major‚ the House of Lords confirmed that a claimant seeking to establish a proprietary estoppel must prove three things: (1) that the defendant’s assurances or conduct in relation to identified property were sufficiently clear and unambiguous in all the circumstances‚ (2) to lead the claimant reasonably to rely on those assurances or conduct; (3) by acting significantly to his detriment‚ so that it would be unconscionable for the defendant to deny him any remedy.” (Per Hayton
Premium Law Contract Common law
Consideration is an essential element in the formation of a contract. Consideration may be a promise to carry out an action or a promise to refrain from carrying out an act that one is legally entitled to perform. Consideration may be defined in many ways‚ the following definition was obtained from Currie v Misa (1975) LR Exch 153. In this case‚ Lush J said: “A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right‚ interest‚ profit or benefit accruing to one party‚ or
Premium Contract law Contract Law
Promissory Estoppel Promissory Estoppel Defined Sometimes an agreement without consideration will be enforced. This happens when a promise which foreseeably induces promisee to act or forebear becomes binding because injustice can only be avoided by enforcement of the promise. Promise A promise is an assurance‚ in whatever form or expression that a thing will or will not be done. Actual Reliance The promisee must actually and justifiably rely on the promise by the other.
Premium Contract law Contract Promise
Proprietary estoppel is a powerful equitable legal concept; used as both a ‘sword’ and a ‘shield’ which distinguishes it from other equitable concepts. To have a successful claim within proprietary estoppel three basic requirements must be fulfilled‚ as quoted by Ying Khai Liew: “B induces A to assume‚ through a promise‚ assurance or acquiescence in A’s mistaken belief‚ that B will cede an interest in property he or she owns to A‚ and A detrimentally relies on the assumption” This essay will
Premium Abraham Lincoln American Civil War United States
Proprietary estoppel protects a person who has a non contractual agreement over land but they have suffered a detriment due to them acting upon a reliance based on an assurance made by the claimant. There has been much discussion in recent case law and academic commentaries as to the elements which make up the nature of proprietary estoppel. Unconscionaibility is a major point for discussion in deciding whether it should be treated as a separate element or if it is linked into the three main elements
Premium Property Common law Property law
The difference between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has been described as ‘illusory’ (Hayton). Do you agree with this statement? Consider how the case law has developed and give reasons for your answer. In his article ‘Equitable Rights of Cohabitees’ Hayton suggested that the distinction between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has‚ over time‚ come to be but illusory and goes on further to propose that since the general direction of
Premium Common law
Daniel Pitaluga. “[On one view of proprietary estoppel] ‘unconscionaibility has no independent existence for it is defined purely in terms of three factual requirements. The corollary is‚ of course‚ that unconscionability exists by definition whenever there is an assurance‚ reliance and detriment‚ because non-performance of the assurance after the detriment will always be unconscionable. Such a view is at odds with those who view unconscionability as at the heart of the doctrine – in the sense
Premium Common law
doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was establish and the derivation of modern doctrine of it is to be found in the The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was first developed but was lost for some time until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the leading case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd. Promissory estoppel There are three exceptions to the rule in Pinnel’s case. They are composite agreement‚ payment of debt by third party and promissory estoppel. The rule in Pinnel’s
Premium Contract Common law Law