What are the necessary requirements of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and discuss whether the notion of unconscionability alone lead to a successful remedy. Furthermore, examine how constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel allow the courts to stray from relevant statutory provisions and empowers judiciary to have more discretion where equitable remedies are queried. The doctrine of Proprietary estoppel is developed by the Chancery Court of King John to manage the problems inherent with the rigidity of the common law, it is an equitable remedy. The doctrine contains 4 elements; assurance, reliance, detriment and unconscionability. This doctrine appears to arise from the LP (MP) Act . It was developed to avoid the uncertainties …show more content…
Once it is successfully established that there has been an assurance by a person, intending that the other relies on it, and other does so to his detriment and it was unconscionable for the assurance to be withdrawn, then the courts must decide an essential remedy for the claimant. The courts look at the circumstances in each case while deciding a suitable form of relief in a way the equity can be satisfied. This process is delicate for the courts to adopt and they usually tend to rely on the words of Scarman Lord Justice that 'the minimum equity to do justice to the plaintiff'. Scarman gave this statement in the case of Crabb v Arun (1976). There are multiple of ways in which court may satisfy the equity which can be seen in numerous cases. It was decided in the case of Jenning v Rice that the maximum equity would be able to provide for the claimants expectations, it must be balanced with the ultimate aim of the court, which is to obtain justice. However, this can be achieved by making the award proportionate to the expectation of the claimant and in line with the detriment suffered by the claimant. (Nigel …show more content…
There have been a number of cases in recent years which deal with proprietary estoppel. In the case of Thorner v Major (2009) court of appeal attempted to clarify the law and applied a somewhat subjective factor of proprietary estoppel claims, and stated that the assurance must be 'clear and unequivocal'. However, the House of Lords disagreed with the test and said that even if it did apply the facts of the case would still satisfy it. House of Lords stated that the relevant assurance had to be clear and held that, what amounts to sufficient clarity depends upon the context on which the doctrine applied, as mentioned before that the facts of a case are of real importance and therefore allows the court to have discretion when using this doctrine. Lord Walker in Thoner stated that, although the doctrine is flexible, it must be formulated and applied in a principled way. In property transactions, certainty is important. However, this shows that the courts are somewhat uncertain with the doctrine, they may be seeking the assistance of the
The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key stage in how the balance is drawn between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Law of Property Act 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overreaching and the machinery of conveyancing.Ref ?
A promissory estoppel is present if one party makes a promise to the other knowing that the other will rely on it. If the other party relies on it, there would be an injustice if the promise was not enforced. In the case of Sam and the chain store, unless the chain store had already paid him and/or spent money in anticipation of the arrival of the 1000 units, promissory estoppel would not be present since they did not rely on Sam’s promise. However, since the text reads that the chain store wrote a letter to Sam demanding that the 1000 units be sent, it implies that they had relied upon that
The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement.
In the early 1900s, “restrictive covenants” more specifically racially restrictive covenants were legally enforceable agreements that prohibited landowners from leasing or selling property to minority groups, at that time namely African Americans. The practice of the covenants, private, racially restrictive covenants, originated as a reaction to a court ruling in 1917 “which declared municipally mandated racial zoning unconstitutional . . . leaving the door open for private agreements, such as restrictive covenants, to continue to perpetuate residential segregation” (Boston, n.d.). It was more of a symbolic act than attacking the “discriminatory nature” (Schaefer, 2012, p. 184) of the restrictive covenants, when the Supreme Court found in the 1948 case of Shelley v Kraemer that racially restrictive covenants were unconstitutional. In this particular case, a white couple, the Kraemers lived in a neighborhood in Missouri that was governed by a restrictive covenant. When a black couple moved into their neighborhood, the Kraemers went to the court asking that the covenant be enforced. In a unanimous decision, it was decided, “state courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant. Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights. However, their enforcement by state court injunctions constitutes state action in violation of the 14th Amendment” (Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948). Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the covenants were unenforceable, it was not until 1968 when the Fair Housing Act was passed that it become illegal (Latshaw, 2010). Even though today it is illegal, it might appear that we still have an unspoken...
The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.
Lord Denning described estoppel succinctly as ‘a principle of justice and equity. It comes to this: when a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs, he will not be allowed to go back on it when it would be unjust or inequitable for him to do so’ . Proprietary estoppel in turn is an informal method by which proprietary rights can arise. It can provide a defence to an action by a landowner who seeks to enforce his strict rights against someone who has been informally promised some right or liberty over the land. In turn it can be used as a defence or a cause of action. In order to show how the two doctrines are quite similar, a description of the elements of proprie...
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...
-Equity: seen over by the Chancery Court; designed to give relief from strict decisions made by the common law
Council V Greater London Council (1982), Searose Ltd V Seatrain (UK). Ltd. in the year 1981. There are certain elements that a Judicial Precedent is dependent upon. they are that the material facts of the case must be the same. principle must be a proposition of law, it must form part of the Ratio.
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
Accessed 16/03/2012. http://www.law201.co.uk/95.pdfaccessed on 16/03/2012. http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199219742/01student/mindmaps/loveland_mindmaps_royal_prerogative.pdfaccessed on 17/03/2012. http://www.justice.gov.uk/royal-prerogative.pdf accessed on 17/03/2012. http://www.justice.gov.uk/royal-prerogative.pdf accessed on 18/03/2012.
United Kingdom is a country with a distinctive set of legal system. It is fairly different from other countries having civil law based legal systems. The legal system in the United Kingdom consists of various sources of law, where other civil law based countries rely only on a written set of law. European influences on the English Legal System came much later in near decades. This essay will aim to examine the development of the English Legal System by reviewing applications of various sources of law in the English Legal System furthermore to discuss the recent European influences on the law of England.
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...