Hughes V Metropolitan Railway Co Promissory Estoppel

The negotiation failed after 6 months and the tenant failed to repair.

Hughes v metropolitan railway co promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was first developed in hughes v. High trees in his development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. 1 facts 2 issue 3 decision 4 reasons 5 ratio thomas hughes owned property leased to the metropolitan railway company at 216 euston road. Notice was given on october 22 1874 from which the tenants had until april 22 1875 to finish the repairs.

Hughes v metropolitan railway 1876 77 lr 2 app cas 439 house of lords a landlord gave a tenant 6 months notice to carry out repairs failure to do so would result in forfeiture of the lease. Metropolitan railway co 1877 2 ac 439 is a house of lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected by lord denning in the case of central london property v. Under the lease hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. The landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the tenant to purchase the freehold of the property.

However in hughes v metropolitan railway company the court did not allow the plaintiff to renege his implied promise to forego a 2 month of negotiation with the defendant for the sale of his the plaintiff house out of the 6 month ultimatum given by him for the defendant to repair the house. In this case the house of lords ruled that with the initiation of the negotiations there was an implied promise by the landlord not to enforce their strict legal rights with respect to the time limit on the repairs and the tenant acted on this promise to their detriment thus allowing the tenants. Promissory estoppel is traceable to hughes v. Promissory estoppel in relation to contract promissory estoppel p e basically prevents a party to a contract from acting in a certain way because they promised not to act in that way and the other party to the contract relied on that promise and acted upon it.

The doctrine was made popular in high trees case. Within the 6 months negotiation for the sale of the lease was opened between landlord and tenant. And that it cannot bring about a course of action to be used as a sword. 1877 as per lord cairns.

On november 28 the tenant railway. Hughes v metropolitan railway co 1877 is a house of lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected by lord denning in the case of central london property trust ltd v high trees house ltd in his development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. Metropolitan railway co. Hughes v metropolitan railway co 1877 is a house of lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected by lord denning in the case of central london property trust ltd v high trees house ltd in his development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel.

A conclusion will be reached stating that promissory estoppel is a defence shield against a promise that was relied and acted upon but not honoured.