Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Estopppel (remedies (minimum (Crabb the minimum equity to do justice,…
Estopppel
remedies
minimum
-
Pascoe v Turner equity should only be satisfied by by giving effect to his promise and her expectations
-
proportionality
Jennings v Rice proportionality between expectation and detriment, promised the estate, going to get damages based on how much put into the estate (detriment suffered)
-
Lissimor v Dowling general promise, don't worry about it, no specifics (to GF)
-
Suggit v Suggit promised farm, in will not to give until sister believed capable of farming - unconditonal promise - farm and house was his
-
Coyle v Finnegan worked on farm for 20 years, promised rights, only left 5000, unconsionable, assurance, reliance detriment present - granted damages of 74,000 - more then neigbhourly service
proprietary estoppel
-
Thorner v Major 3 elements - representation(assurance), reliance, detriment because of that reliance
Gillett v Holt don't treat the 3 elements as completley independent each other, can influence each other
promissory
Central London v Hightrees promise mace which is intended to create legal relations, should ensure promise is honoured - rent during war frozen, can raise for the future
Cullen v Cullen plaintiff proposed transfer property and business to his wife in exchange for not being admitted to mental hospital, wife told her son to errect portable house on land - wife had been told she could do as she wished on the land - estopped by conduct from being transferred
Shield or a sword
-
-
Barge Inn v Quinn not a cause of action, only a defence
key ingredients - pre-existing legal relations, unambiguous reprsentation, reliance by promisee, element of unfairness and unconscionability
-
elements of estoppel
assurance
Thorner v Major
assess the assurance in the context, wrong to be unrealistic when applying clear and ambiguous test - can have more then 1 meaning
must be clear, reasonably understood
Naylor v Maher persuasive authority, promises and representations intended to be relied upon - was it reasonable to rely on them
-
C.D. v JDF there must be an actual promise or clear direct representation or inducement of some kind - mere silence or inaction is not a reprsentation
Gillett v Holt not necessary to find an irrevocable promise, the reliance makes it irrevocable
-
reliance
Wayling v Jones once its established promises made and plaintiffs conduct was caused by inducement, burden shifts to show plaintiff didn't rely
-
unreasonable reliance
Yeoman Row clear unequivocal assurance in commercial cases, unconscionability without assurance, reliance and detriment does not give rise to estoppel
-
-
Haughen v Rutledge must have belief or sufficient interest that justified expenditure - must have been encouraged - plaintiff knew the extent of his interest, he knew it would end - should have spent on it
Detriment
need not consist of the payment of money Re Basham payment of As money on Bs property isn't the only type of detriment that gives rise to estoppel
-
-
-
-
Jones v Watkins trivial expenses not detriment, assurance doesn't have to be sufficiently clear, the more vague a promise is the more clear the evidence of the reliance on that promise
-
-
-
statutory
Dublin Corporation v McGrath built commercial warehouse, planning inspector visited, told her not to worry, he was dismissed, he had promised and she relied on but couldn't use estoppel - ultra vires
-