Ownership of property proprietary estoppel essay
Moving on, it is important to note that this doctrine is not a universal remedy that cure all defects in formalities, because if it was, there would be no point in having formality rules.
Proprietary Re Basham is one case that gives the elements of proprietary estoppel as that which has assurance, reliance and detriment all of which do not really have to arise from a contractual relationship, it confers the right of action and arises from the remedies of equity and can bind third parties constituting the equitable proprietary rights.
Crabb v Arun District Council  Ch. There has been some uncertainty pertaining the position of joint owners in the English jurisdiction The final element of proprietary estoppel is that the person must have suffered a detriment due to the reliance on the assurance which has caused a change in their position.
This doctrine is essentially important to run parallel with the practice of common-law formalities in land issues because of its compatibility to overcome injustices that may incur due to strict procedural and documentation requirements. Cooke  but the case of constructive trust any misconduct for self benefit by the trustee is seen to be held in trust and so the beneficiaries are entitled to any profit that it acquired.
Constructive trust vs promissory estoppel
What is required is that … the landownerbecomes aware of the work and knows that the other party is carrying it out in the belief that heowns the land in question or has rights over it but fails to object, [and in such a case] his silencewill be treated as a species of equitable fraud sufficient to found an estoppel. Pascoe v Turner  1 W. Proponents of flexible approach to the law are likely to encourage this indirect intrusion of equitable doctrine in the formalistic rule pertaining to land law registrations and transactions of interests therein. Related Papers. Indicating that unconscionaibility is a function of the three elements. The difference between the two cases is that Cobbe was a commercial setting while Thorner was purely a case of domestic context, hence the claim for PE was successful. On the other hand, the case of Cobbe v Yeoman was more inclined towards the indirect entitlement of interests in commercial context. Pearson Longman, London 87 [ 9 ]. The assurance made must be clear enough so that claimant is found to have relied upon. It may be regarded as being an essential component to satisfy equity, as opposed to pose inclination towards the expectations of the claimants. Thus, notwithstanding that reliance and detriment may, in the abstract, be regarded as different concepts, in applying the principles of proprietary estoppel they are often intertwined.
Next the claimant must show that they had relied on the assurance.
based on 97 review