Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947)
"a promise intending to be binding, intended to be acted on and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its terms properly apply"
3 of 12
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877)
"Equitable waiver"
4 of 12
Jorden v Money (1854)
An estoppel will ahve the effect of preventing a party from denying the truth of their representation of fact
5 of 12
Alan v El Nasr (1972)
The promisee must have 'conducted his affairs on the basis of the promise'
6 of 12
The Post Chaser (1982)
it is not necessary to show detriment; indeed the representee may have benefited from the representation, and yet it may be inequitable, at least without reasonable notice, for the representor to enforce his legal rights
7 of 12
D & C Builders v Rees (1966)
Equitable Maxim: "He who comes to equity must do so with clean hands"
8 of 12
Combe v Combe (1951)
The wifew could not rely on the promise as she had provided no consideration
9 of 12
Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electrical (1955)
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is merely suspensory
10 of 12
Hughes v Met Railway
The rights were suspended
11 of 12
Ajayi v Briscoe (1964)
The doctrine of promisspory estoppel may extinguish rights
12 of 12
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Part-payment of a debt to a third party
Back
Welby v Drake (1825)
Card 3
Front
"a promise intending to be binding, intended to be acted on and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its terms properly apply"
Back
Card 4
Front
"Equitable waiver"
Back
Card 5
Front
An estoppel will ahve the effect of preventing a party from denying the truth of their representation of fact
Comments
No comments have yet been made