Case Study Of The Central London Pty V. High Trees Case
The case was based in London (Clapham) in 1940 during World War II, where a landlord was not able to lease all of his flats due to the hardship of war throughout that time, Central London Pty (CLP) agreed to reduce the ground rent by 50%. Occupants …show more content…
The element of consideration, estoppel, was the essential component. This was an infamous case in the twentieth century that changed Australian Law. As judge Denning introduced the doctrine, he highlighted the importance of protecting the rights and facts of an agreement that may differ from the original.
Therefore. If CLP had demanded full rent from High Trees before 1945, then the rule of estoppel would have been employed. Promissory estoppel is a doctrine used in English Law that prevents a person from relying upon certain rights that differ from earlier facts or agreements made. The receiver had no knowledge of the agreement between CLP and High Trees so the company expected payment for the arrears since 1940. CLP had no legal leg to stand on, as they had reneged the previous agreement with the receiver.
Judge Denning estopped this. He noted that the further agreement made by CLP with High Trees was made with no consideration. The representation to the fact, that reducing the rent was not actually a representation of an existing fact. It was a representation as to a future …show more content…
The chocolate bar wrappers were assumed to be more ample than the employers claiming extra hours of work. These two cases outline the out-dated doctrine of consideration.
Since Jordan V. Money. Over the last 50 years there has been many decisions that were said to be cases of estoppel, but were not really as such. In a strict sense they are not cases of estoppel. They are promises that are intended to be binding. In saying this, this could have affected the possible outcome of multiple cases.
The most imperative part in establishing a contract is the mutual intention of both parties to form a legal relationship. Most general contracts are established between two parties with the basic thinking that it will be legally binding. It is the responsibility of both parties to decide on a fair agreement that will benefit both.
Nowadays if a party is going to enter into a contract, I am more than certain they will only agree if they have all the facts and completely understand what they would be bound to. Accordingly, under normal circumstances, I am certain that anyone in their right mind would not enter into a contract that only benefits one party. The time has come for some adjustments to the doctrine of