An additional requirement is that the person making the claim — the promisee — must have reasonably relied on the promise.In other words, the promise was one that a reasonable person would ordinarily rely on.The concept of freehold restrictive covenants places around promises made by one party to another.
An additional requirement is that the person making the claim — the promisee — must have reasonably relied on the promise.Tags: A Book Report On Peter Rabbit LyricsHow To Make An Abstract In A Research PaperBest Creative Writing Degrees UkPersuasive Essays Child ObesityWhat'S A Cover Letter ResumeMarco Polo Essay
The site is run by graduates who understand the needs of students and the academic requirements of the LLB law degree programme.
Promissory estoppel is the legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.
On the one hand, and in similar fashion to the related doctrine of promissory estoppel, proprietary estoppel can...
Read more of the answer →To what extent have recent decisions of the House of Lords clarified the circumstances in which a person may plead ‘undue influence’ as a defence to a mortgagee seeking to exercise its remedies under the mortgage?
Therefore Mr Cobbe’s “was not an expectation that he would, if the planning application succeeded, become entitled to “a certain interest in land” but an expectation “of further negotiations leading, as he hoped and expected, to a formal contract” .
There has been legislation in relation to the contract for sales and dispositions of interests in land since 1677 and it is important to note that much of the legislation was simply...
“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 and Mitchell: ‘Commentary and cases on the law of Trust and Equitable Remedies’, 13th edition, Sweet and Maxwell, page 78) Critically analyse and evaluate this statement in light of recent developments in the law of proprietary estoppel.
Therefore the statements in Cobbe regarding unconscionability are uncontroversial and do not significantly alter its position within the doctrine.
He stated that the required assurance was of a ‘certain interest’ and this meant that the claimant must specify the interest in the property he believed he had or would have.
Cobbe dealt with a case of proprietary estoppel in a commercial context.