 | The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline .(October 2014) |
| McDonald v Attorney-General | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Russell John McDonald v Attorney-General |
| Decided | 20 June 1991 |
| Transcript(s) | High Court judgment |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Holland J |
McDonald v Attorney-General is a cited case in New Zealand regarding satisfying the requirement in promissory estoppel for reliance by the other party. [1]
McDonald was a Southland wheat farmer. The Wheat Board had advised wheat growers that wheat grown that had a baking score of 12 or higher would be purchased by the Board, and that such graded wheat could only be sold to the Board. In knowledge of all this McDonald expected the Board to purchase his wheat. However, due to an outbreak of wheat mould in Southland, the board found it had little demand for such wheat, and as a consequence, the Board refused to purchase his wheat.
McDonald eventually sold his wheat to other parties, at a loss, and he sued the Board for compensation.
The court ruled that promissory estoppel applied here, and awarded McDonald compensation, effectively turning promissory estoppel from a shield, into a sword. Holland J stated "In converting promissory estoppel from a "shield" to a "sword" care must be taken not to extend it further into a weapon of the nature of an atomic bomb that will destroy the existing framework of legal principle by way of provision for compensation in the fields of both contract and tort"
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.
Rugby Southland is the provincial rugby union who govern the Southland region of New Zealand. Their headquarters are at Rugby Park Stadium in Invercargill, which is also the home ground of the union's professional team, the Southland Stags who compete in the Mitre 10 Cup Championship Division and challenge for the Ranfurly Shield.
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] is a House of Lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected in 1947 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.
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.
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991), was a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that the First Amendment freedom of the press does not exempt journalists from generally applicable laws.
Reliance damages is the measure of compensation given to a person who suffered an economic harm for acting in reliance on a party who failed to fulfill their obligation. If the injured party could go back in time, they should be indifferent to entering into the contract that would be breached and receiving the reliance damages as opposed to not entering into any contract with the breaching party. The injured party should be put in a substantially similar situation position as they would have been had the contract not been entered into. This is different from expectation damages, where the injured party should be indifferent between the fulfillment of the contract and never having entered into the contract.
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.
Culpa in contrahendo is a Latin expression meaning "fault in conclusion of a contract". It is an important concept in contract law for many civil law countries, which recognize a clear duty to negotiate with care, and not to lead a negotiating partner to act to his detriment before a firm contract is concluded. In German contract law, § 311 BGB lists a number of steps by which an obligation to pay damages may be created.
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.
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd[2008] UKHL 55 is a House of Lords case in English land law and relates to proprietary estoppel in the multi-property developer context. The court of final appeal awarded the project manager £150,000 on a quantum meruit basis for unjust enrichment because Yeoman's Row had received the benefit of his services without paying for that. The court refused to find or acknowledge a binding contract, prior arrangement with a third party or promise, overturning a £2m award on the basis of a possible lien arising from a promise over the property. The court found a non-binding agreement in principle, entirely subject to the owner's final say to take into account for example their view of the market; this was the basis on the facts on which the parties were proceeding.
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.
Drennan v. Star Paving Company, 51 Cal. 2d 409 (1958), was a California Supreme Court case in which the court held that a party who has detrimentally relied on an offer that is revoked prior to acceptance may assert promissory estoppel to recover damages.
Burbery Mortgage Finance & Savings Ltd v Hindsbank Holdings Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 356 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding promissory estoppel, and the ground that their needs to be a pre existing legal relationship before this doctrine applies. This case also is notable that it extends legal relationships to include creditors to the same entity.
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.
Tool Metal Mfg Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd [1955] 2 All ER 657 is a cited case regarding promissory estoppel.
 | This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |