Estoppel
Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. 1949
A lets a block of flats to B at a ground rent of L2500 per annum.
Later A promises in writing to accept only L500.
B accordingly reduce the rents due to them form the tenants in actual occupation of the flats in order to support a claim for the full L2500.
A will not be permitted to invoke the absence of consideration for their promise.
Doctrine of promissory estoppel: somebody who has made a clear and unambiguous promise cannot resile from that promise:
- if he thereby intentionally modifies his existing contractual rights
- and the other person has taken him at his word and has acted upon his promise
A husband, after decree nisi for divorce, promised gratuitously to pay his wife L100 per annum by way of maintenance.
The wife in consequence (though not at the husband's request) forbore to apply to the court for an order for maintenance.
The wife could not invoke her voluntary forbearance in order to force the husband to keep his promise.
The promissory estoppel cannot by itself be used to found a claim, but only to avert one, or to rebut a defence that might otherwise be available.
Crabb v. Arun District Council 1976
The defendants allowed the plaintiff to make use of a right of way over their land, and then blocked it up.
The plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to restrain them from doing so.
In proprietary estoppel the plaintiff can support a claim on the basis of the defendant's behaviour.
Case of proprietary estoppel.
D & C Builders Ltd. v. Rees 1966
A debtor offered a lesser a sum in discharge of a greater debt under threat that unless the creditor accepted the offer nothing would be paid at all.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked.
The person sued must have acted in reliance upon the promise made to him.
In paying the lesser sum the debtor suffered no loss in reliance upon anything (he had himself forced the transaction upon the creditor).
Inwards v. Baker 1965 Court of Appeal
A father (without consideration) encouraged his son to build, at the son's expense, a bungalow on his (the father's) land.
They were not entitled to do so.
The son has acted to his detriment.
Case of proprietary estoppel: One person leads another to suppose that he is granting the other rights over his property; the other relies upon this and acts to his detriment.