Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Attorney General and Another V Humphreys Estate Ltd. (1987) HKLR 427 Case Digest

    Transféré par

    Nicole Yau
    338 vues2 pages
    This document summarizes a judicial case from the Privy Council regarding whether parties were estopped from withdrawing from an agreement in principle for a land exchange deal. The key holdings were that: 1) To establish estoppel, a party must show they created or encouraged an expectation that they would not withdraw, and the other party relied on this expectation. 2) In this case, the appellant failed to establish these elements to prevent the respondent from withdrawing from the agreement in principle. 3) It is possible but unlikely that estoppel could prevent parties from refusing transactions outlined in a document expressed to be "subject to contract".

    Description originale:

    Titre original

    Attorney General and Another v Humphreys Estate Ltd. [1987] HKLR 427 Case Digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    RTF, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    This document summarizes a judicial case from the Privy Council regarding whether parties were estopped from withdrawing from an agreement in principle for a land exchange deal. The key holdings were that: 1) To establish estoppel, a party must show they created or encouraged an expectation that they would not withdraw, and the other party relied on this expectation. 2) In this case, the appellant failed to establish these elements to prevent the respondent from withdrawing from the agreement in principle. 3) It is possible but unlikely that estoppel could prevent parties from refusing transactions outlined in a document expressed to be "subject to contract".

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme RTF, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    338 vues2 pages

    Attorney General and Another V Humphreys Estate Ltd. (1987) HKLR 427 Case Digest

    Transféré par

    Nicole Yau
    This document summarizes a judicial case from the Privy Council regarding whether parties were estopped from withdrawing from an agreement in principle for a land exchange deal. The key holdings were that: 1) To establish estoppel, a party must show they created or encouraged an expectation that they would not withdraw, and the other party relied on this expectation. 2) In this case, the appellant failed to establish these elements to prevent the respondent from withdrawing from the agreement in principle. 3) It is possible but unlikely that estoppel could prevent parties from refusing transactions outlined in a document expressed to be "subject to contract".

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme RTF, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    Page1

    Status:

    Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment

    ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER v HUMPHREYS ESTATE (QUEEN'S GARDENS) LTD.


    Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 11 December 1986

    Case Analysis
    W e!e Re"#!$e% Case Di&es$
    198!" #$%& '(!) S'()e*$+ Contract la* S',,a!y+ Contract la*) Contract) esto++el) a,reement in +rinci+le -sub.ect to contract-) *hether because of actions +arties *ere esto++ed from *ithdra*in, from an a,reement in +rinci+le) +rinci+les of esto++el/ A(s$!a*$+ The a++ellant and the res+ondent entered into ne,otiations for an e0chan,e *hereby the a++ellant *ould ac1uire a number of flats in a buildin, o*ned by the res+ondent and the res+ondent *ould ta2e from the a++ellant a cro*n lease of +ro+erty3 2no*n as 4ueen5s 6ardens3 to,ether *ith the ri,ht to develo+ that +ro+erty and an ad.oinin, +ro+erty o*ned by the res+ondent/ The terms *ere a,reed in +rinci+le but sub.ect to contract/ The res+ondent +ur+orted to *ithdra* from the ne,otiations/ The a++ellant ar,ued that by virtue of the res+ondent5s action in allo*in, the a++ellant +ossession of the flats and in ta2in, +ossession of 4ueen5s 6ardens and demolishin, the buildin,s thereon3 it *as unconscionable for the res+ondent to *ithdra* from the a,reement in +rinci+le and the res+ondent *as esto++ed from so doin,/ #eld: 1/ 7n order to found an esto++el it *as not sufficient to sho* merely that a +arty has acted to its detriment and3 to the 2no*led,e of the other +arty3 in the ho+e that that other +arty *ill not *ithdra* from an a,reement in +rinci+le/ #e must sho* first that the other +arty created or encoura,ed a belief or e0+ectation on his behalf that that other +arty *ould not *ithdra* from the a,reement in +rinci+le and3 secondly3 that he relied on the belief or e0+ectation/ 8See +/ '9(:/; (/ <n the facts the a++ellant failed to establish either ,round/ 8See +/ '9(6/; <biter: 7t *as +ossible3 but unli2ely3 that3 in circumstances at +resent unforeseeable3 a +arty to ne,otiations set out in a document e0+ressed to be -sub.ect to contact- *ould be able to satisfy the Court that the +arties had subse1uently a,reed to convert the document into a contract3 or that some form of esto++el had arisen to +revent both +arties from refusin, to +roceed *ith the transactions envisa,ed by the document/ 8See +/ '9=6/; >++eal dismissed/

    Di!e*$ His$#!y

    Court of >++eal HUMPHREY'S ESTATE (QUEEN'S GARDENS) LTD v ATTORNEY GENERAL - ANOTHER ./0123 H4LR 2205 ./0123 H4LY /6/ (Civil A""eal N# 07 #8 /019) A88i!,e% (y Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER v HUMPHREYS ESTATE (QUEEN'S GARDENS) LTD.

    Page(

    ./0163 H4LR :76 (P!ivy C#'n*il A""eal N#. 72 #8 /012)

    Cases Ci$in& $ is Case

    C#nsi%e!e% (y ?@>AT7%>ND C< %TD v C<BB7SS7<N@& <: 7N%>ND &@C@NA@ 199D" 1 #$%& '8D 87nland &evenue >++eal No/ 1 of 1989; ) #C
    E (D1( Thomson &euters #on, $on, %imited

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi