Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr: promissory estoppel or a contractual approach?

In Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr  ([1979] Q.B. 467, CA (Eng)) B was the owner of some blocks of flats let at a rack rent. It offered long leases of these flats to the tenants. It gave the people who took the long leases an assurance that it would meet the cost of repairing the roofs of the flats even though the leases required the tenants to contribute to the cost. B later went back on that assurance and sought contributions to the cost of the repairs in accordance with the terms of the leases. One of the defendants was an original tenant while the other two were assignees. All refused to pay the contributions sought. The English Court of Appeal unanimously decided that B could not recover from the tenants. Lord Denning MR based the conclusion on promissory estoppel and thought that the benefit of the estoppel passed to successors in title. The other two members of the Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion on the basis that either B’s assurance was part of a collateral contract or that B’s assurance amounted to a waiver that affected its right to recover both from the original tenant and from assignees.

One Response to “Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr: promissory estoppel or a contractual approach?”

  1. amos Says:

    This is awesomem. Brief , genuine and straight to the point

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: