Hughes V Metropolitan Railway Law Teacher

Cited collier v p and m j wright holdings ltd ca bailii 2007 ewca civ 1329 2007 npc 136 2008 1 wlr 643 2007 bpir 1452. 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. It was due to expire on the 22nd of april the next year.

root canal treatment cost malaysia government rumusan sejarah tingkatan 1 seni bina tamadun rom rumah dato meor abdul rahman sample of conceptual framework in research proposal renewable energy in malaysia 2020 renew road tax and insurance at post office malaysia rumi doa selepas solat pdf scholarship for degree students in karnataka 2019

Hughes V Metropolitan Railway Co Wikipedia

Promissory Estoppel Is A Shield Not A Sword University Law Marked By Teachers Com

Legislating Promissory Estoppel In Malaysia

Consideration

Vgqihnluaovfhm

3 Promissory Estoppel Law Of Contract Lw2602 Cityu Studocu

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.

Hughes v metropolitan railway law teacher. On november 28 the tenant railway. Notice was given on october 22 1874 from which the tenants had until april 22 1875 to finish the repairs. Under the lease hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. Mr hughes owned a property on the euston road.

Here the landlord gave his tenant 6 months to repair the property else risk forfeiture. Contract law revision. The leading case on waiver by estoppel and promissory estoppel seized on by the late great lord denning in the celebrated central london property trust ltd v high trees house ltd. He let it to the metropolitan 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. 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. 1 facts 2 issue 3 decision 4 reasons 5 ratio thomas hughes owned property leased to the metropolitan railway company at 216 euston road. Hughes v metropolitan railway co house of lords.

Promissory estoppel differs from common law estoppel because it has less strict requirements and it may arise from promise of future conduct or intention. Promissory estoppel is traceable to hughes v. The lease had a covenant requiring the leaseholder to repair on six months notice. Metropolitan railway 1877 2 app case 439.

1877 2 app cas 439. The landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the tenant to purchase the freehold of the property. A lessor gave a repair notice against his lessee on the 22nd of october.