More cards in this set

Card 16

Front

Case that says there must be 'substantial detriment'

Back

Preview of the front of card 16

Card 17

Front

Explain Jennings v Rice [2003]

Back

Preview of the front of card 17

Card 18

Front

Point in Sledmore v Dalby [1996]

Back

Preview of the front of card 18

Card 19

Front

Explain the criteria of unconscionability

Back

Preview of the front of card 19

Card 20

Front

Case- The result must shock the conscience of the court

Back

Preview of the front of card 20

Card 21

Front

Why is a claim in proprietary estoppel risky?

Back

Preview of the front of card 21

Card 22

Front

Case- 'the minimum equity to do justice between the parties'

Back

Preview of the front of card 22

Card 23

Front

Explain Davies v Davies [2015]

Back

Preview of the front of card 23

Card 24

Front

Does the equity bind the representer's successors in title? Statute?

Back

Preview of the front of card 24

Card 25

Front

Similarities between proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts

Back

Preview of the front of card 25
View more cards