Can anybody please explain estoppel to me?

I understand that it's not a sword, but a shield, but what are all of these different types?
Proprietary? Promissory? I've read lots of articles and explanations, and cannot understand it. :s-smilie:

Thanks!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1

Forum User

Well, are you sure you need to know both types for the module you are doing at the moment? Usually promissory is covered in contract law and proprietary in equity/land law. In the average undergraduate degree they should be covered in different years.

You also have the sword and shield thing the wrong way around if you are referring, as I suspect, to promissory estoppel.

Reply 2

jjarvis

Original post by lizolove

I understand that it's not a sword, but a shield, but what are all of these different types?
Proprietary? Promissory? I've read lots of articles and explanations, and cannot understand it. :s-smilie:

Thanks!

Promissory estoppel prevents a person from resiling on an undertaking on which another person has reasonably relied. The classic case is High Trees. A block of flats in London was partly unrented during the Second World War because of the blitz. The landlord agreed to accept less rent, because the tenant was not able to find people to occupy the flats. After the war, the landlord sued for the unpaid part of the rent. Denning J, as he then was, sitting in the High Court, drew on a line of 19th century authority and held that where A gives an undertaking to B and B reasonably relies on that undertaking to his detriment, A is estopped from resiling on his undertaking. The landlord couldn't agree to accept a reduced rent, then demand to be paid the full rent later on. High Trees is a very clear judgment--but do remember that it's High Court, not an appellate judgment.

There's some dispute about whether A's rights are suspended or executory, if I remember correctly--could the landlord demand more rent once the war ended, but not the difference in rent rate during the wars?

Proprietary estoppel is quite different, in that it can create rights (and a correlative cause of action to protect those rights) for the claimant. It usually involves an undertaking/representation by one person that another will gain a proprietary right in something. Cobbe v Yeoman's Row and Thorner v Major are the two major, recent cases dealing with it. Lord Neuberger MR also wrote quite a good article in the CLJ on proprietary estoppel, I think in 2009 or 2010.

Reply 3

AmiB

Original post by lizolove

I understand that it's not a sword, but a shield, but what are all of these different types?
Proprietary? Promissory? I've read lots of articles and explanations, and cannot understand it. :s-smilie:

Thanks!

It prevents someone going back on something that they had originally promised to stick to e.g. reducing the rent in High Trees, as long as the claimant has reasonably relied on their promise.

You resitting contract then? Good luck! :yy:

Reply 4

lizolove

Original post by AmiB

Sitting it for the first time Amy! I was sick for the first exam. ):
I think I get it, cheers. :smile:

Reply 5

jacketpotato

The key to understanding this area is to focus on understanding the different types of estoppel, before you focus on understanding estoppel as a concept.

The idea of estoppel is very simple - people should not be able to go back on their promises, where someone else has reasonably relied on that promise. This can be manifested in many ways: contract, property, civil procedure and some types of constructive trust. Unfortunately, English law has rather muddled the concept. The criteria for the different types of estoppel are different - for example, you can use proprietary estoppel as a sword but cannot use promissory estoppel except as a defence. Most States in the US and Australia have long since abandoned the distinction between contract and property law, but it is important to treat them separately in exams.