| Ogilvy v Hope Davies | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court |
| Citation(s) | [1976] 1 All ER 683 |
| Keywords | |
| Estoppel | |
Ogilvy v Hope Davies [1976] 1 All ER 683 is an English contract law case concerning promissory estoppel.
| Ogilvy v Hope Davies | |
|---|---|
| | |
| Court | High Court |
| Citation(s) | [1976] 1 All ER 683 |
| Keywords | |
| Estoppel | |
Ogilvy v Hope Davies [1976] 1 All ER 683 is an English contract law case concerning promissory estoppel.
Ogilvy was selling the Creech Hill Farmhouse, Cranborne to Hope Davies. An abstract of title to the house needed to be sent to Hope Davies' solicitors, but Ogilvy, as a trustee failed to include the deed of appointment as trustee until later on. Hope Davies' solicitors delayed making requisitions and completion till the deed was sent, and this put Ogilvy at a loss. Ogilvy sued for losses resulting from the delayed completion.
Graham J held that Hope Davies' solicitors should have raised requisitions on the defective abstract of title, because it was defective only in ways which were relatively unimportant and likely to be corrected. The late delivery of the deed of appointment, together with a letter sent by the vendors asking that all the requisitions be raised at the same time, amounted to a waiver by Ogilvy of the time limits on requisitions, and it would be inequitable to allow them to claim for losses occasioned by the delay.
It is it seems to me a case which might well not have come before this court if the instructing solicitors on both sides had not, as the correspondence shows, become irritated with each other shortly after the end of the summer term in 1973.
As it is, the small amount at stake, £503.60, is bound to be swallowed up in fighting the case to no one's advantage. In the absence of a settlement, however, which would clearly have been sensible, I must decide the matter on what I conceive to be the proper legal basis...
Legally, I consider the position is governed by the principles of waiver or promissory estoppel, however it may be classified, which are set out for example, in the judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in W.J. Alan & Co. Ltd. v. El Nasr Export and Import Co . [1] There, after referring to Panoutsos v. Raymond Hadley Corporation of New York [2] and Enrico Furst & Co. v. W.E. Fisher Ltd. , [3] he says: [4]
What is the true basis of those decisions? is it a variation of the original contract? or a waiver of the strict rights thereunder? or a promissory estoppel precluding the seller from insisting on his strict rights? or what else?In Enrico Furst Diplock J. said it was a “classic case of waiver.” I agree with him. It is an instance of the general principle which was first enunciated by Lord Cairns L.C. in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co . [5] and rescued from oblivion by Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd . [6] The principle is much wider than waiver itself: but waiver is a good instance of its application.
The principle of waiver is simply this: If one party, by his conduct, leads another to believe that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be insisted upon, intending that the other should action that belief, and he does act on it, then the first party will not afterwards be allowed to insist on the strict legal rights when it would be inequitable for him to do so: see Plasticmoda Societa per Azioni v. Davidsons (Manchester) Ltd . [7] There may be no consideration moving from him who benefits by the waiver. There may be no detriment to him by acting on it. There may be nothing in writing. Nevertheless, the one who waives his strict rights cannot afterwards insist on them. His strict rights are at any rate suspended so long as the waiver lasts. He may on occasion be able to revert to his strict legal rights for the future by giving reasonable, notice in that behalf, or otherwise making it plain by his conduct that he will thereafter insist upon them: Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd . [8] But there are cases where no withdrawal is possible. It may be too late to withdraw: or it cannot be done without injustice to the other party. In that event he is bound by his waiver. He will not be allowed to revert to his strict legal rights. He can only enforce them subject to the waiver he has made.
Instances of these principles are ready to had in contracts for the sale of goods. A seller may, by his conduct, lead the buyer to believe that he is not insisting on the stipulated time for exercising an option: Bruner v. Moore . [9] A buyer may, by requesting delivery, lead the seller to believe that he is not insisting on the contractual time for delivery: Charles Richards Ltd. v. Oppenhaim . [10] A seller may, by his conduct, lead the buyer to believe that he will not insist on a confirmed letter of credit: Plasticmoda, [11] but will accept an unconfirmed one instead: Panoutsos v. Raymond Hadley Corporation of New York ; [12] Enrico Furst & Co. v. W.E. Fisher . [13] A seller may accept a less sum for his goods than the contracted price, thus inducing him to believe that he will not enforce payment of the balance: Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd . [14] and D. & C. Builders Ltd. v. Rees . [15] In none of these cases does the party who acts on the belief suffer any detriment. It is not a detriment, but a benefit to him, to have an extension of time of to pay less, or as the case may be. Nevertheless, he has conducted his affairs on the basis that he has that benefit and it would not be equitable now to deprive him of it.So here it would, in my judgment, in all the circumstances, be inequitable, to allow the plaintiffs to insist on the strict rights to which they would have been entitled if they had not led the defendant to believe that they were not insisting on them. The time was in fact getting very short when they wrote the letter of August 15, 1973, and this, coupled with the failure to deliver the deed of appointment until August 20, entitled the defendant to assume that completion by August 30, 1973, would, not in fact be possible. Any question of withdrawal of the waiver was impossible before August 30 because the time was impossible before August 30 because the time was far too short.
The plaintiffs' therefore fail and the defendant is entitled to judgment.
Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 is a famous English contract law decision in the High Court. It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in contract law in England and Wales. However, the most significant part of the judgment is obiter dicta as it relates to hypothetical facts; that is, the landlord did not seek repayment of the full wartime rent.
Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.
Foakes v Beer[1884] UKHL 1 is an English contract law case, which applied the controversial pre-existing duty rule in the context of part payments of debts. It is a leading case from the House of Lords on the legal concept of consideration. It established the rule that prevents parties from discharging an obligation by part performance, affirming Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a. In that case it was said that "payment of a lesser sum on the day [i.e., on or after the due date of a money debt] cannot be any satisfaction of the whole."
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.
Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.
A collateral contract is usually a single term contract, made in consideration of the party for whose benefit the contract operates agreeing to enter into the principal or main contract, which sets out additional terms relating to the same subject matter as the main contract. For example, a collateral contract is formed when one party pays the other party a certain sum for entry into another contract. A collateral contract may be between one of the parties and a third party.
Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a, also known as Penny v Cole, is an important case in English contract law, on the doctrine of part performance. In it, Sir Edward Coke opined that a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole.
Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 is a famous English contract law case on promissory estoppel. An ex-wife tried to take advantage of the principle that had been reintroduced in the High Trees case to enforce her husband's promise to give her maintenance. The Court held that promissory estoppel could not be applied. It was available only as a defence and not as a cause of action.
In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in a number of contract types in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract.
Canadian contract law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian contract law is derived from English contract law, though it has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867. While Québecois contract law was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of contract law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. Individual common law provinces have codified certain contractual rules in a Sale of Goods Act, resembling equivalent statutes elsewhere in the Commonwealth. As most aspects of contract law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, contract law may differ even between the country's common law provinces and territories. Conversely; as the law regarding bills of exchange and promissory notes, trade and commerce, maritime law, and banking among other related areas is governed by federal law under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; aspects of contract law pertaining to these topics are harmonised between Québec and the common law provinces.
D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1965] EWCA Civ 3 is a leading English contract law case on the issue of part payment of debt, estoppel, duress and just accord and satisfaction.
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher, is a leading case in Australian contract law. The Australian High Court decided that estoppel, in certain circumstances could be a cause of action.
The Law of Property Act 1989 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament, which laid down a number of significant revisions to English property law.
Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] EWCA Civ 7 is a leading English land law and contract case concerning "proprietary estoppel". Lord Denning MR affirmed that where agreements concern the acquisition of rights over land, there is no need for both parties to provide a consideration for upholding the bargain. While promissory estoppel cannot found a cause of action it was held that in the peculiar situation of land, consideration is not necessary at all.
Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd[2007] EWCA Civ 1329 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration and promissory estoppel in relation to "alteration promises".
Dale v Trustbank Waikato Ltd is an often cited case in New Zealand cases regarding promissory estoppel, requiring that the promise must be unequivocal for this doctrine to be successful.
Young v New Bay Holdings Ltd (1998) 3 NZ ConvC 192,808 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding satisfying the element of detriment required under promissory estoppel.
Commonwealth v Verwayen, also known as the Voyager case, is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. This case is most frequently referred to in relation to its influence on the doctrine of estoppel.