Hughes V Metropolitan Railway Company

Within the 6 months negotiation for the sale of the lease was opened between landlord and tenant.

Hughes v metropolitan railway company. Under the lease hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. 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. 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. Notice was given on october 22 1874 from which the tenants had until april 22 1875 to finish the repairs.

It was due to expire on the 22nd of april the next year. 1877 as per lord cairns. The company will agree to surrender the whole of the leases in consideration of a payment of 3000. Cited tool metal manufactuing company ltd v tungsten electric company ltd hl bailii 1955 ukhl 5 1955 1 wlr 761 1955 2 all er 657 the principle in hughes v metropolitan railway could apply to a reduction by concession in payments due to a creditor and a concession could be terminated by giving reasonable notice.

A lessor gave a repair notice against his lessee on the 22nd of october. 1 facts 2 issue 3 decision 4 reasons 5 ratio thomas hughes owned property leased to the metropolitan railway company at 216 euston road. Metropolitan railway 1877 2 app case 439. The landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the tenant to purchase the freehold of the property.

1877 2 app cas 439. 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. We shall be glad to hear from you at your early convenience that is followed by the particulars of the metropolitan railway company s interest in the houses in euston road the property of mr. Promissory estoppel is traceable to hughes v.

Here the landlord gave his tenant 6 months to repair the property else risk forfeiture. High trees in his development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. The lessor wrote back suggesting that they would like to buy the property. The negotiation failed after 6 months and the tenant failed to repair.

It is the first principle upon which all courts of equity proceed that if parties who have entered into definite and distinct terms involving certain legal results certain penalties or legal forfeiture af terwards.