The court considered the creation of an estoppel: Cotton LJ: ‘. . what passed did not make a new agreement, but . . what took place . . raised an equity against him.’
Bowen LJ said: ‘The truth is that the proposition is wider than cases of forfeiture. It seems to me to amount to this, that if persons who have contractual rights against others induce by their conduct those against whom they have such rights to believe that such rights will either not be enforced or will be kept in suspense or abeyance for some particular time, those persons will not be allowed by a Court of Equity to enforce the rights until such time has elapsed, without at all events placing the parties in the same position as they were before. That is the principle to be applied. I will not say it is not a principle that was recognised by Courts of Law as well as of Equity. It is not necessary to consider how far it was always a principle of common law.’
Fry LJ considered that there was an essential difference between a claim for damages for breach of a contract and a claim for an indemnity under an express provision in a contract.
Judges:
Cotton LJ, Fry LJ, Bowen LJ
Citations:
(1886) 40 ChD 268
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
Promissory Estoppel Created
The plaintiff leased a block a flats to the defendant in 1939, at an annual rental of pounds 2500. High Trees had difficulty in filling the flats because of the war, and the parties agreed in writing in 1940 to reduce the rental to a half. No time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Estoppel
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.251177