Estoppel PDF

Preview

Summary

Estoppel...

Description

Estoppel & promise enforcement Ch 7 (7.2-7.14) and revise from Contracts Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29 (per Lord Denning); Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776 (per Lord Walker); Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101 Common law estoppel This estoppel prevents a person who, by a representation of fact, has induced another to alter her position, from denying the fact as represented   

not cause of action , but alters the basis on which other causes of action may be brought or defended [ Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) ] existing fact Jorden v Money (1854) : o orally stated that she would not enforce a debt , then go back on her word o is a statement as to her future intention, not of existing fact

Equitable (or promissory) estoppel Where the representation made, or assumption created, relates to a future state of affairs and not existing fact, and a party relies on the representation or assumption to her detriment. 

includes pre-existing relationship [ Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maber (1988) ]

Criteria for a valid esstopel Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maber (1988) 1. Assumption -- P assumes that a particular legal relationship exists between P & D or that a particular relationship will exist between them. In the latter case P must assume that D is not free to withdraw from the expected legal relationship 2. Inducement -- D has induced P to adopt that assumption or expectation 3. Reliance -- P acts or abstains from acting in reliance on the assumption or expectation 4. Knowledge -- D knew or intended him to act on the assumption 5. Detriment -- P's action or inaction will occasion detriment if the assumption or expectation is not fulfilled 6. Failure to prevent detriment -- D has failed to act to avoid that detriment whether by fulfilling the assumption or expectation or otherwise In addition :  P's reliance on the assumption or expectation created must be reasonable [ Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) ]  Particular legal relationship => detriment may be avoided by the party who creates the assumption giving reasonable notice of an intended departure from the assumption [ Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) ]

Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd (1989) 

essential terms must be clear & settled

Robinson v Harman (1848) 

place P in the position in which she would have been in if the contract had been performed

Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) :  

Cth stated that it would not deny liability & would not rely on the statute of limitation as a defence => changed he policy HC case but not a clear authority : expectation-based, reliance-based

Proprietary estoppel prevent a holder of an interest in property from insisting upon his legal rights to property where he has encouraged another to act to her detriment on the faith of her belief that she has, or would be granted, some rights over the property in question. Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862): 

Facts: a father allowed his son to possess some of his land & conveyed the land to him under a conveyance which proved to be defective. The son occupied the land and built a house on it with the father's knowledge & approval. On the father's death, the son obtain a declaration that he was the equitable owner of the land

Distinction between proprietary estoppel & equitable estoppel  

a court will more readily enforce a P's reasonable expectations in cases of proprietary estoppel o since there is no danger of the principles of contract law being subverted Equitable relief is of course flexible => court will not necessarily enforce a P's expectations if this remedial approach is inappropriate o eg. expectations are not clearly defined or because the expectation are not proportionate to the P's expenditure on the property [ Dodsworth v Dodsworth (1973) ]

Equitable compensation instead of proprietary interest



Giumelli v Giumelli (1999): o Facts: parents encouraged P to work for their business without pay by promising him that he would be given a part of a block of land => P did considerable work on the land => parents refused to transfer a share of the land to him after he married a woman of whom they disapproved o √ proprietary estoppel => P relied to his detriment on the expectation created by his parents that he would be awarded a share in the property o **awarded PV of the promised plot of land instead of a proprietary interest in the land o because an award of proprietary interest to P, by way of constructive trst, would defeat any interest those family members had in the land...