Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Crago v Julian
|
Deed required to assign a lease.
|
|
|
Yaxley v Gotts
|
Builder had bottom floor flat, oral agreement with owner. This didn't comply with s2(1) LP(MP)A therefore not contract. So... Got beneficial interest through 99 year lease.
|
|
|
Willmott v Barber
|
five probanda... five requirement before proprietary estoppel could be establish. HISTORIC. NOT USED.
|
|
|
Taylor Fashions v Liverpool
|
Unconcscionability test. Wider because there doesn't have to be knowledge of mistaken belief.
|
|
|
Dillwyn v Llewelyn
|
Father promised son a plot of land to leave in his will. Actually left it somewhere else. Promise... Then in assurance and to his detriment son built a house on that plot of land. Got expectation remedy of fee simple.
|
|
|
Pascoe v Turner
|
Partner said "it's all yours" spent all of her savings in reliance of this promise on doing up the house. Therefore got the whole house. Got expectation remedy of fee simple.
|
|
|
Crabb v Arun Council
|
Sold land thinking he had easement over council's land and their gate, but ended up landlocked. He relied upon promise of easement when selling land, got minimum equity to do justice - got the easement.
|
|
|
Taylor v Dickens
|
Promise to leave house in will. Courts took restrictive view, promise to make a will and not to keep it/not revoke it. Detrimental reliance was a gardener/helper. Didn't get anything. Very restrictive. But looked upon unfavourably since Gillet v Holt - approach held to be wrong.
|
|
|
Gillett v Holt
|
Farm boys stays for decades on very low wages. Many representations over 38 years. Promise was relied upon to detriment. Unusual case because the guy was still alive. He got some of the property and cash. Detriment must be substantial, but isn't narrow or technical and doesn't have to be money. Courts look at the matter "in the round" including the extent of detriment suffered.
|
|
|
Thorner v Major
|
Similar to Gillett v Holt, many years, low wages, and turned down the right to go to agricultural school. BUT not sufficient assurance therefore didn't get anything.
|
|
|
Munt v Beasley
|
Landlord knew tenant was converting the attic space even though that wasn't hers to renovate from her lease. Knew about it therefore was acquiescence she was entitled to use the loft space.
|
|
|
Greasley v Cooke
|
Housemaid for many years, was detrimental reliance as was told she could stay there forever, didn't spend any actual money. BUT acted to her detriment in not finding other jobs/investing in her own house. This was sufficient for DR.
|
|
|
Coombes v Smith
|
Roof over your head. Lover had baby, reliance upon promise of roof, she argued her detriment was in not getting a job. Held to be insufficient.
|
|
|
Stevens & Cutting v Anderson
|
Onus on claimant to show detriment.
|
|
|
Cobbe v Yeoman’s
|
Property developer was promised orally to build flats, got planning permission etc. Went back on terms. But unconscionability not sufficient on its own, it is a necessary part though. Argued that they should have know that it needed to be written down in a contract whereas Thorner v Major wouldn't have known. Look at the matter in the round Gillett v Holt.
|
|
|
Sledmore v Dalby
|
Look at the matter "in the round" Gillett v Holt including the relative positions of A and B. Remedy = unjust enrichment, basically the reverse of detriment. What they gained you get back in £.
|
|
|
Dodsworth v Dodsworth
|
Spent money on the house thinking she has a proprietary interest. Remedy = compensation for expenditure.
|
|
|
Jennings v Rice
|
Compensation = proportionality was essential between expectation and detriment.
|
