Oliver LJ rejected a submission that, where parties were shown to have a common view about the legal effect of a contract into which they had entered and it was established that one of them would not, to the other’s knowledge, have entered into it if that party had appreciated its true legal effect, they are estopped from asserting that the effect was otherwise than the party originally supposed. He said that that submission could not be right and that he could not see how an erroneous belief as to the effect of the contract could properly be described as a ‘conventional basis for dealings’ so as to give rise to an estoppel, and ‘the jurisdiction to grant possession is exercisable only subject to the statutory provisions and it is a little difficult to see how the parties can, by estoppel , confer on the court a jurisdiction which they could not confer by express agreement’
Judges:
Oliver LJ
Citations:
[1984] 1 WLR 251, [1984] 1 All ER 75, (1983) 47 P and CR 639
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Eric Myles Calcott ChD 23-Nov-2001
The tenant had claimed a tenancy under the Act. The landlord sought to assert a proprietary estoppel against them. There was nothing in the 1986 Act to stop the claimants relying on a proprietary estoppel and asserting their claims to occupation. . .
Cited – Wilson v Truelove ChD 25-Mar-2003
The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act.
Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. The right arose on the coming into existence of the agreement, or at the latest on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity, Estoppel
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.180372