Estoppel

Question 1

Estoppel by representation

Answer 1

Pickard 1837- by words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe existence of certain state of things so induces him to act and therefore changes his position

Must be representation of fact

Question 2

Promissory estoppel 20 century development after estopppel by representation

Answer 2

High trees case - landlord agreed with tennant to reduce rent during wartime , then tried to claim original rent backdated after war

Walton stores Australian case - lessees instructed solicitor to go slow , lease never signed , landowner already started demolition
Held - leassees implied promise - promissory estoppel used as enforcement of promise but only the minimum required to avoid detriment

Question 3

Estoppels resist classification

Answer 3

Lionel smith - way of solving legal problems

Question 4

Ramsden v Dyson 1866 established

Answer 4

Propitiatory estoppel essentially

2 tenants entitled to long leases on plot

Question 5

Crab v arun 1975 3 questions

Answer 5

Has equity arisen ie clear promise and unconscionability (promise , reliance, detriment )

What is extent of equity (measuring)

What relief is appropriate

Also extends propitiatory estoppel to promises - not restricted to existing rights

Question 6

Crab v arun measuring equity

Answer 6

Compensate to extent of value lost by claimant
Expectation?

What if reliance low and expectation high ?
Jennings v rice - find middle ground
Suggitt- ensure against wild expectations
Davies v davies 2016 - sliding scale between expectation and detrimental reliance

Question 7

Guest v guest 2022

Answer 7

Majority upheld Jennings - expectation as stating point unless out of all proportion to cost of detriment

Defendants could choose how to satisfy equity
Either hold farm on trust with life interest or make monetary payment with discount for accelerated payment

Estoppel concerned with preventing unconscionability

Measure of equity and satisfaction of equity treated together

Question 8

Cobbe v yeomanns Rowe 2008 death of proprietary estoppel ?

Answer 8

D promised to sell it c got planning permission
C did so reliance and detriment ie cost to do so

Hol no estoppel - estoppel flexible but not treatable as joker or wild card

Question 9

Thorner v major - reviving proprietary estoppel

Answer 9

Claimant had worked for d estates farm for over a decade without pay believing that he would inherit land after d death
Was in will but the will was retracted
There was no express statement that he would inherit tho

Affirmed Davies v davies

Question 10

Crabb v arun

Answer 10

About right of way over council land
C became landlocked