Weekly review: 25th – 29th June 2012

Contractual licences; proprietary estoppel

A reasonable notice period can be implied into a revocable contractual licence that does not specify the notice period to be given. There is no estoppel where the landowner has done nothing (whether by words, conduct or a ‘silent’ assurance) to represent that a claimant will have some interest in the land (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v The King).

Estoppel by convention

‘When the parties have acted in the transaction on the agreed assumption that a given statement of facts is to be assumed between them as true, then as regards that transaction each will be estopped as against the other from questioning the truth of the statement of facts so assumed.’ (Spencer Bower and Turner, Estoppel by Representation, 3rd ed (1977) cited with approval in Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (In Liquidation) v Texas Commercial Bank Ltd per Brandon LJ).

Promissory estoppel

The promise in promissory estoppel must be precise, clear, unambiguous (Chekiang First Bank Ltd v Sino Legend International Enterprise Ltd).

Proprietary estoppel

The equity arising from proprietary estoppel can bind subsequent volunteers (Chin Lan Hong v Cheung Poh Choo).

Waiver by estoppel: promissory estoppel

A party to a contract who represents to another that he will not insist on strict compliance with a term (making time of the essence for example) can lose the right to enforce that term when the other party relies on the representation to his detriment (European Asia (Hong Kong) Investment Ltd v Wong Shun On Anthony).


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 )

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: