{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Held jb had established prop estoppel the father had

Info iconThis preview shows pages 8–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Held: JB had established prop estoppel. The father had created a reasonable expectation in JB that if he built the bungalow it would be his home for life. JB spent that money in the expectation that he would be able to stay and live there. In the circumstances the court will not allow that expectation to be defeated where it would be inequitable to do so. It was found appropriate to enforce the right by way of a ‘licence to occupy for life’. Party holds an ‘equity’ – which is a proprietary style right. (equities are not considered to be proprietary as such). Equities Equities only give rise to personal rights – to seek orders from the court. Those personal rights are only enforceable against the person who created the equity. Once you get to court and it is acknowledged by the court – it will determine how the equity is to be satisfied. At times a court will grant an expectation relief (makes good the expectation was induced). At other times the court may only grant damages amounting to the expectation. Sometimes you will only receive reliance damages. Waltons Stores – court need only grant the minimum remedy to relieve the inequity. (CB 7.105, TB 7.185) Facts: Waltons was a hardware shop which negotiated a lease for some land. The negotiations envisaged that the existing building would be demolished and would be replaced at the landowner’s expense. The new building was to be designed for Walton’s specifications. Waltons wanted things to proceed 8
Background image of page 8

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
asap and there was a tight deadline. At the exchange and signing of documents. The solicitors for Waltons sent the document to the landowner’s solicitors unsigned with a cover letter reserving the right to make amendments. Within a week the landowner’s solicitor told Waltons’ solicitor that he had to wind it up within a day or two or he will be unable to meet the deadline. The next day the solicitor sent the final draft with a covering note saying that they believe that approval will be forthcoming and they would let the solicitors know the following day if their client did not accept those changes. Waltons never signed the documents and sat on the lease documents for 2 months during which time the landowners demolished the old building and had commenced construction on the new one. Brennan J: Mason CJ and Wilson J: The issue is whether they are estopped from denying the existence of a binding contract. They say that a person’s whose conduct lends force to an assumption by another that he will obtain an interest in land and on the basis of the expectation the other alters his position or acts to his detriment may bring into existence an equity in favour of that other person. It is only unconscionable if that assumption is created and encouraged by the defendant. Elements of Proprietary Estoppel
Background image of page 9
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page8 / 47

Held JB had established prop estoppel The father had...

This preview shows document pages 8 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

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