central london property trust ltd v high trees house ltdの例文

• It was held that the landlords could not afterwards turn round and sue for the balance, see " Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd ".
• This, in my judgment, is a misnomer and the present case does not raise the controversial issue of the " Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd " decision.
• ""'Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd " "'[ 1947 ] KB 130 ( or the " High Trees case " ) is an English contract law promissory estoppel in contract law in England and Wales.
• The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was first developed in " Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co " but was lost for some time until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the leading case of " Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd ".
• The doctrine of " promissory estoppel " was first developed in " Hughes v . Metropolitan Railway Co " [ 1877 ] but was lost for some time until it was resurrected by Denning J in the controversial case of " Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd ".
• ""'Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co " "'[ 1877 ] is a House of Lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected 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.
• Serving to illustrate the ongoing tension between Pinnel's Case / Foakes v Beer " doctrine " and that of promissory estoppel and the judicial reticence to displace / modify a doctrine that flowed from no less a man than Sir Edward Coke; some commentators seeing the case as seeming to leave door open to side-stepping " Foakes v Beer " via  promissory estoppel ( see : " Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd " ) whilst others have criticised the judgment, Alexander Trukhtanov, suggesting:
• Perhaps the final word should rest with Robert Pearce QC who after highlighting the uncertainty as to whether the courts will follow the implications inherent in High Trees ( Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and D & C Builders v Rees; ( and subsequently adopted by Arden LJ in " Collier v P & MJ Wright ( Holdings ) Ltd " ) in that " as a corollary, if there is'true accord', it will necessarily follow that it will be inequitable for the creditor to seek payment of the balance " going on to say: