Skip to content

Agreement In Uk Law

However, consideration is a doctrine that flows from the common law and can be suspended according to the principles of justice. Historically, England had two separate judicial systems, and the Courts of Chancery, which derived their ultimate authority from the king over the Lord`s chancellor, prevailed over the Common Law Courts. The same has been true of its principles of equality since the merger of the systems in 1875. [119] The doctrine of waiver of guilt states that when one person gives an assurance to another, the other relies on him, and it would be unfair to reconsider the assurance, that person is deterred from it: an analogue of the maxim that no one should benefit from his own injustice (nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans). For example, in Hughes against Metropolitan Railway Co,[120] the House of Lords held that a lessee could not be excluded by the lessor because he had not breached his contractual obligations to repair, because the opening of negotiations on the sale of the property gave tacit assurance that the repair costs would be suspended. And in Central London Properties Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd,[121] Denning J stated that a landlord would be prevented from claiming normal rent during the years of World War II because he had ensured that half of the rent could be paid until the end of the war. The Court of Appeal went further in a recent debt repayment case, Collier v. P&M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd.[122] Arden LJ, arguing that a partner who had been assured that he should repay only one-third of the partnership`s debt instead of being jointly and severally liable for the whole had relied on insurance through repayments. and it was unfair for the financial corporation to later demand full repayment of the debt. Therefore, Estoppel could circumvent foakes` common law rule.

However, the effect of the debt was considered incapable of introducing an independent means, so that one can rely only on the fact that another party is prevented from imposing its strict legal rights as a “shield”, but that no means of recourse as a “sword” can leave the Estoppel. [123] In Australia, this rule was relaxed at walton stores (interstate) Ltd v Maher, where M. Maher was encouraged to believe he would have a contract to sell his country and began demolishing his existing building before Walton Stores finally told him they didn`t want to finish. Mr. Maher received generous damages to cover his loss (i.e. damage to trust, but apparently damages for the loss of expectations, as if there were a contract). [124] However, where a guarantee relates to property rights, a variant of the “property value” allows an applicant to invoke estoppel as a remedy. Thus, in Crabb against Arun District Council, Mr. Crabbe was assured that he would be entitled to an access point to his country by Arun District Council and relied on him to sell half of the land on which the only existing access point was located. The Council was prevented from not doing what they said. [125] Given the complexity of the legal argument to arrive at simple solutions, it is not surprising that a number of commentators[126] as well as the principles of European contract law required a simple task of counterpart doctrine, while maintaining the essential requirements of the agreement and the intention to create legal relationships.

Such a measure would also remove the need for the common law doctrine of privity. . . . .