Proprietary Estoppel

Question 1

Requirements for promise-based strand

Answer 1

1. Assurance (reasonably understood)
2. Reliance
3. Detriment
   ( 4. Unconscionably ) - final check to make sure the decision was the correct one

Question 2

Thorner v Major

Answer 2

The assurance need not be verbal - conduct is enough

Must be ‘clear enough’ (reasonably understood)

Question 3

Crab v Arun DC

Answer 3

Left a gap in the fence; this conduct assured C that he would get the easement

Question 4

Ramsden v Dyson

Answer 4

Assurance by silence … more applicable to acquiesce strand

• court will not allow one to assert title after another has expended money on the supposition that the land was his own

Question 5

Layton v Martin

Answer 5

The assurance was in a letter begging for her back, which seems like it wasn’t meant to be reasonably understood to be relied upon

Question 6

Wayling v Jones

Answer 6

test: ‘would you still have done what you did, even if they told you they would break the promise?’

Question 7

Greasely v Cooke

Answer 7

You assume action done after promise was in reliance

Question 8

Grundt v Great Boulder

Answer 8

Look at more than financial detriment

- you have to look at everything

Question 9

Gillock v Holt

Answer 9

Normal wages, but he made life changing decisions on the belief that he would get the farm
- chose schools, turned down other offers

Question 10

Henry v Henry

Answer 10

when considering detriment, also consider any perks

- he got free accommodation

Question 11

Fisher v Brooker

Answer 11

Classic acquiescence case - A doesn’t tell B that B is building on his land; A cannot then assert his right

Question 12

Hopgood v Brown

Answer 12

Estoppel by representation

- D is precluded from asserting true location of boundary against C if he made a rep earlier