The Plaintiffs father, B, had agreed with one T that he would marry T’s daughter and provide a jointure for her in consideration of T’s undertaking to leave a sum of pounds 10,000 in his will to his daughter to be settled on her and her children. B married T’s daughter and provided her with a jointure, but T did not leave his daughter in his will the pounds 10,000 which he had promised. B’s son asked the Court of Chancery to order T’s executors to pay the money.
Held: A representation made by one party for the purpose of influencing the conduct of another, and acted on by him, will in general be sufficient to entitle him to the assistance of a Court of Equity, for the purpose of realising such representation.
A submission that there never had been more than ‘a rough sketch of the proposals expressly subject to revision’ was rejected. Lord Lyndhurst LC said: ‘But the principle of law, at least of equity, is this – that if a party holds out inducements to another to celebrate a marriage, and holds them out deliberately and plainly, and the other party consents, and celebrates the marriage in consequence of them, if he had good reason to expect that it was intended that he should have the benefit of the proposal which was so held out, a Court of Equity will take care that he is not disappointed and will give effect to the proposal. This is stated as a part of the arrangement; it is stated in the proposal.’
Lord Cottenham, Lord Lyndhurst LC, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell
[1845] EngR 592, (1845) 12 Cl and Fin 45, (1845) 8 ER 1312
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.303734