Estoppel

For this assignment, the statement that "The doctrine of estoppel prevents a claimant from going back on a promise and has been described as a ‘shield and not a sword'. Will be evaluated using relevant case law. First looking at the meaning of the doctrine that was developed by Lord Denning. This will then be investigated with case law which looks at the practical application and judgments found in these cases, giving clearer definition and meaning to the doctrine and look at an up to date case to

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

In every free market economy individuals are allowed to autonomously enter into contracts and for contracting parties to make their own decisions about the types of contract they enter into and the terms on which they will contract (Paterson, 2009). A definition by Hall (1997) highlights that a contract is an exchange of promises carried through by a process of offer and acceptance with the intention of creating a legally binding deal, in which the English case of L’ Estrange v F Graucob Ltd it has

Partners@reliancelawyers.com.au PURPOSE: This memorandum analyses the contractual dealings between our client, Sandy, and Mark to determine whether equitable and proprietary estoppel is applicable in this case, and whether the promise Mark made to Sandy in regards to subdividing his land must be upheld. SUMMARY: QUESTION 1A) It will be argued that estoppel is definitely applicable in this case as no contract was formally created by the two parties due to the lack of a formal written agreement , the intention to

promise to reduce rent by 50% for a period (unambiguous representation.), they then shouldn’t be able to demand something that is contrary to this representation, because of an unexpected upturn in income of the other party (Abigail). Promissory estoppel can be divided into five separate parts. First, there was a promise of future conduct, with an intention for a legal relationship, on these new terms. I would say this would apply for Abigail as the council has accepted the reduction of rent by 50%

“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

Activity 2 - WEEK 4 WORKBOOK QUESTIONS [Copy and paste your answers to the questions marked “WORKBOOK QUESTIONS” from the Week 4 workshop exercises and problem questions and Week 4 seminar questions here. Revise your answers to incorporate any feedback that you have received. For example, feedback receive in class by your Instructor, individually during consultation times, or by way of the weekly summary answers]

precedent, yet it essentially created the doctrine of promissory estoppels In terms of a legal claim, estoppels are being used as a defence against another’s claim, it is also quite usual to say that estoppels can be used as a ‘shield but not as a sword’ ;proprietary estoppels, as decided in cases such as Crabb v Aruncan very definitely be used as a sword. The distinction between proprietary and promissory estoppels is that, proprietary estoppels arises from an owner’s encouragement of or acquiescence in

than received no confirmation or made some kind of representation such as it would take after a specific agreement or allow the individual a specific advantage. In this respect, the convention of legitimate expectations resembles the regulation of estoppel a well-known in private law. As stated in the last principle, the meeting made a portrait of this law is certainly prevented from returning on its promise if the other party has negatively depended on it. However, there are still essential contrasts:

Another aspect we must consider is the part payment of debt in order to understand how the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be used to aid a debtor. The general rule regarding part payment of debt, at common law, is that it is not good consideration to pay a lesser sum. If the debtor does not pay the creditor all that he owns, the debtor has an obligation to pay the full amount. The general rule was established in the Pinnel’s case where paying a lesser sum does not form a binding contract as