Lecture 7 – Proprietary estoppel (2)
Ingredients of PE:
- Assurance
- Reliance
- Detriment
- Unconscionability? Could be the 4th strand, or something that
underpins the others.
The proportions of each don’t always need to be even. See Thorner.
The level of assurances was pretty low, nothing is ever explicitly said.
But, reliance and detriment are very high. He gets the entirety of the
farm.
I) DETRIMENT
Case of Gillet v Holt:
Expands the definition of detriment. What does detriment mean?
Gillet is a golf caddie, works for my Holt. Gives up opportunities such as
going to college to continue working for him. Gillett is given a house to
move in to when he gets married, believes he can stay there for the rest of
his life. Holt falls out with the Gillet’s and cuts them out of his will. In
judgment, the assurances were clear. The reliance was clear. Court is
looking at the extent of the detriment. The law doesn’t like people getting
something for nothing. I.e. if you hven’t relied on it, then you are getting
something for nothing.
See Walker LJ:
‘[detriment] is not a narrow or technical concept…[it] need not consist
of the expenditure of money or other quantifiable financial detriment
so long as it is something substantial…. whether the detriment is
sufficiently substantial is to be tested by whether it would be unjust or
inequitable to allow the assurance to be disregarded – that is, again,
the essential test of unconscionability.’
Ingredients of PE:
- Assurance
- Reliance
- Detriment
- Unconscionability? Could be the 4th strand, or something that
underpins the others.
The proportions of each don’t always need to be even. See Thorner.
The level of assurances was pretty low, nothing is ever explicitly said.
But, reliance and detriment are very high. He gets the entirety of the
farm.
I) DETRIMENT
Case of Gillet v Holt:
Expands the definition of detriment. What does detriment mean?
Gillet is a golf caddie, works for my Holt. Gives up opportunities such as
going to college to continue working for him. Gillett is given a house to
move in to when he gets married, believes he can stay there for the rest of
his life. Holt falls out with the Gillet’s and cuts them out of his will. In
judgment, the assurances were clear. The reliance was clear. Court is
looking at the extent of the detriment. The law doesn’t like people getting
something for nothing. I.e. if you hven’t relied on it, then you are getting
something for nothing.
See Walker LJ:
‘[detriment] is not a narrow or technical concept…[it] need not consist
of the expenditure of money or other quantifiable financial detriment
so long as it is something substantial…. whether the detriment is
sufficiently substantial is to be tested by whether it would be unjust or
inequitable to allow the assurance to be disregarded – that is, again,
the essential test of unconscionability.’
