The plaintiff applied to the defendant railway company for permission to construct and use a private branch line connecting with the railway company’s main line. Agreement was reached for the plaintiff to do so ‘on reasonable terms, which were to be afterwards settled.’ The plaintiff, acting on this agreement, constructed and used the branch line and for some two and a half years paid tolls at an agreed rate to the railway company. Agreement in principle was reached on the details of the plaintiff’s user of the branch line but a formal agreement was never signed. The railway company gave notice to the plaintiff to cease his user of the branch line.
Held: The railway company had allowed the plaintiff ‘to expend his money on the faith that he would be permitted to join their line on reasonable terms’ and that the tolls agreed upon and paid by the plaintiff for his past user must be assumed to represent reasonable terms. ‘It must’, said the Vice-Chancellor, ‘be inferred, from the nature of the transaction, that the privilege of using the line was not to be determinable.’
Judges:
Page Wood V-C
Citations:
(1859) Johns 500, [1859] EngR 1021, (1859) 70 ER 519
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Cited – Hooper and Another v Oates CA 20-Feb-2013
The parties had agreed for the purchase of land, but the buyer, Mr Oates, failed to complete. A notice to complete was served, and on non-compliance, the repudiation was accepted. It proved difficult to resell, and they suffered substantial losses. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Estoppel
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.276428
