{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Equity may come to relief of plaintiff who has acted

Info iconThis preview shows pages 6–8. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Equity may come to relief of plaintiff who has acted to his/her detriment in relying on a representation by the defendant in circumstances where it would be unconscionable for the defendant to resile from the representation Encompasses both promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel. 3. The question is whether you get the property right you thought you were getting (based on the expectation), or do you get something else? PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL 1. Where: a landowner creates or encourages an expectation in plaintiff that s/he will acquire a property right, and the plaintiff acts to his or detriment in reliance on the expectation, equity will not allow the expectation to be defeated where it would be inequitable to do so. 2. Representation may be as to intention (future) 3. PE can be used as a cause of action. 4. The benefit need not flow to D. 6
Background image of page 6

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
7 HOW IS THE EXPECTATION TO BE SATISFIED? 1. Court can grant TWO types of remedy: A says to B that he’ll build a shed on B’s land. It costs $100, is concreted in. What sort of relief? a. NOT expectation, as property worth $1mil, but A spent $100. b. INSTEAD, go for reliance, which is expenditure only. INWARDS V BAKER 1. B’s father invited him to build a house on the father’s land 2. B built house at own expense 3. Father’s will left the land to Inwards and others. 4. Inwards sought possession of the land against B. 5. The estate argued B merely had a licence. 6. Held: Proprietary estoppel had arisen and it is for court to say in what way it can be satisfied. B held entitled to remain as long as he wishes. It was quite apparent that if a person is encouraged to build on land etc, an expectation had been created. His detrimental reliance was building the bungalow, but couldn’t get it as it was a fixture of the land. Thus, it was unconscionable for the father to allow this, but then deny him the bungalow for his life. 7. B had an ‘equity of acquiescence’, a proprietary right enforceable against the father’s successors in title, coupled with a licence to occupy for life. 8. Denning argued it was a licence coupled with an equity that was enforceable against the estate. “An equity of acquiescence.” HOW IS THE EQUITY TO BE SATISFIED? 1. Court may grant Expectation relief - making good the expectation that was induced in the plaintiff (as in Inwards v Baker; Crabb v Arun ) The ‘minimum equity’ to relieve the detriment – by framing an order that will relieve the detriment suffered by the plaintiff (as in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher ) GIUMELLI V GIUMELLI: FACTS 1. Robert (R) worked on his parents’ orchard property under a partnership agreement. 2. Parents promised him part of the land for working without wages. 3.
Background image of page 7
Image of page 8
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page6 / 47

Equity may come to relief of plaintiff who has acted to...

This preview shows document pages 6 - 8. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online