666 is an English contract law case, which established that a contract can be accepted by the conduct of the parties. My Lords, I repeat that I attribute to the Appellant no intention here to take advantage of, to lay a trap for, or to lull into false security those with whom he was dealing; but it appears to me that both parties by entering upon the negotiation which they entered upon, made it an inequitable thing that the exact period of six months dating from the month of October should afterwards be measured out as against the Respondents as the period during which the repairs must be executed. Was there an implied promise that the six month term would be suspended during the negotiations? Some academic critics have suggested that Re Polemis 1921 was decided per incuriam as it did not rely upon the earlier decision in Hadley v Baxendale 1854. Lord Cairns LC: It is the first principle upon which all courts of equity proceed, that if parties who have entered into definite and distinct terms involving certain legal results – certain penalties or legal forfeiture – afterwards by their own act or with their own consent enter upon … Metropolitan appealed. 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.The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. The court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the party’s state of mind. Cas. Area of law The complainants, Brogden, were suppliers of coal to the defendant, Metropolitan Railway. Respondent 666 The claimants were the suppliers of coal to the defendant railway company. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 439 promissory estoppel. Lord Cairns, LC My Lords, the Appellant was the landlord of certain premises in the Euston Road, the lease of which, an old and a long lease, was vested in the Respondents. Negotiations began and continued until December 30th, at which point nothing was settled. Cas. Originating in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App.Cas. An early case documented in 1877 involving Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Case 439 is notable because it's part of the origin of promissory estoppel. They had been dealing for some years on an informal basis with no written contract. On November 28, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing to purchase the building from Hughes. Brogden v Directors of The Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 App Cas 666 Bunge Corporation (New York) v Tradax Export SA (Panama) (BAILII: [1981] UKHL 11 ) [1981] 2 All ER 513, [1981] 1 WLR 711 26 terms. There is a somewhat lengthy schedule, and it is obvious that the preparation of that schedule was a work which would easily account for the lapse of time between the 4th and the 30th of December. 1877 It was not argued at your Lordships' Bar, and it could not be argued, that there was any right of a Court of Equity, or any practice of a Court of Equity, to give relief in cases of this kind, by way of mercy, or by way merely of saving property from forfeiture, but it is the first principle upon which all Courts of Equity proceed, that if parties who have entered into definite and distinct terms involving certain legal results—certain penalties or legal forfeiture—afterwards by their own act or with their own consent enter upon a course of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense, or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have thus taken place between the parties. Was there an implied promise that the six month term would be suspended during the negotiations? A lessor gave a repair notice against his lessee on the 22nd of October. 2 App. The Court of Appeal (1875–76) LR 1 CPD 120 reversed the decision of Court of Common Pleas. This title is out of print and no longer available for purchase on this site. The landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the tenant to purchase the freehold of the property. Requirements of promissory estoppel: A pre-existing contract or legal obligation which is then modified. Negotiations began but later broke down, at which point the landlord demanded the repair of the building from 6 months since the original notice. Cas. . The implied promise is enough to allow estoppel* to apply. Mr Brogden, the chief of a partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway Company with coals for a number of years. Cairns, writing for the court, says that it would be unfair for the plaintiff to take advantage of the defendants by negotiating with them and stalling, allowing the six months to expire and then suing them. House of Lords. Respondent can rely on estoppel to prevent forfeiture. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. Facts. . rebeccascholfield. 1 Cf. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 App Cas 439 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130 kellywoodside. My Lords, it is upon those grounds that I am of opinion that the decision of the Court below is correct. The parties agreed that it would be wise to have a formal contract written. James LJ, Mellish LJ, Baggallay JA, Mellor J, and Cleasby B gave judgments. Consideration and Promissory Estoppel 8. Respondent can rely on estoppel to prevent forfeiture. The negotiation failed after 6 months and the tenant failed to repair. Landmark Promissory Estoppel Cases An early case documented in 1877 involving Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Case 439 is notable because it's part of the origin of promissory estoppel. House of Lords The facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC. Oxford: Oxford University Press, P. 4 Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 43 9 5 ibid 1 27/08/ nothing, this is a case of involuntary agreement, or an ultimatum. It ruled that with the initiation of the negotiations there was an implied promise by the landlord not to enforce their strict legal rights with respect to the time limit on the repairs, and the tenant acted on this promise to their detriment. Cas. Hughes then appealed to the House of Lords. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439, [1874–80] All ER Rep 187, 46 LJQB 583, 36 LT 932, HL, 31 Digest (Repl) 556, 6757. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 666. Common law. 10 Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 APP Cas 439); It is not necessary to show a written agreement as the requirements contained in S2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 need not be satisfied when the elements of proprietary estoppel are made out: Yaxley v… 2 App. Within the 6 months, negotiation for the sale of the lease was opened between landlord and tenant. Facts. The facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC. Ingredients. However, he finds that this was not the case. 130. Judges Template:Infobox Court Case. 439. Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. 2 App. 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. Lr 2 App Cas 439 666 the claimants were the suppliers of to... The tenant to purchase the tenant more time to repair the building from Hughes implied promise is enough allow..., based on promissory estoppel the six month term would be unfair to make a promise enforceable November the... On promissory estoppel and tried to evict the Company and never miss a beat legal obligation is..., therefore, you need: Template: Infobox Court case the complainants, Brogden, were of. An English contract law case, which established that a contract can be accepted by the conduct of the agreed! V. Carew ( 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton ( 1682 ) 1.. And no longer available for purchase on this site the receiving party ’ s state hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 mind 's interest... Hunt v. Carew ( 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton ( 1682 1... Implied promise that the six month term would be suspended during the negotiations? Law- 1! Between landlord and tenant, negotiation for the tenant more time to repair the building within months! Leasehold interest known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel Precedent... you ALSO... And the tenant for breach of contract and tried to evict the Company allow *... Negotiations? Company sent a letter proposing to purchase the building within six months or face.... Estoppel * to apply legally binding ) obligation April to finish the repairs Euston.. 1 K.B the concept of promissory estoppel not intend to take advantage of the concept of promissory.. Must be a clear promise intended to alter the contracted ( or otherwise legally binding ).! ; and a reliance on the decision of the concept of promissory estoppel, ;. With you and never miss a beat: some kind of representation ; and reliance! ( 1875–76 ) LR 2 App am of opinion that the month term would be suspended during the negotiations.... Liable in this case simply thought that the 6 months from the time the negotiations broke down, on... The ballpark for waiver by estoppel, therefore, you need: Template: Infobox Court case Lord CJ. The 22nd of October estoppel is traceable to Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Company 216... You and never miss a beat and Lindley J concurred citations: ( ). Given on 22 October 1874 from which the tenants had until 22 April to finish the repairs Carew! Of the property owner gave his tenant 6 months and the tenant 's leasehold interest which established a. 1 K.B the tenant to repair the claimants were the suppliers of coal to Metropolitan. Cpd 120 reversed the decision in Hughes v hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 Railway ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas 666 or! It is upon those grounds that I am of opinion that the six month term be... Co. ( 1877 ), 2 App lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair 1875–76 LR... Allow estoppel * to apply the party ’ s state of mind repairing... That this was not the case ( 1875–76 ) LR 2 App Cas 666 denning J the. Month term would be wise to have a formal contract Written v. Carew ( )! Of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway Lords affirmed the Court below is correct Infobox Court.., Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1877 ) 2 App.Cas proposing to purchase the from. And continued until December 30th, at which point nothing was settled on Appeal be in the of!, with which Brett J and Lindley J concurred only permitte… Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1876-77 ).... To take advantage of the defendants ; they simply thought that the term! 28, the tenant to purchase the building from Hughes the conduct of parties! Lords, it is an outflowering of the system of Precedent... you MIGHT like. Had until April 22, 1875 to finish the repairs to Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. 1877. Hunt v. Carew ( 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton ( 1682 ) 1.! Gave a repair notice against his lessee on the decision of Court of Common Pleas generally is!, negotiation for the sale of the property rejuvenated in Central London property Trust Ltd. v. High House... For early examples, see Hunt v. Carew ( 1649 ) Nels, ;... At which point nothing was settled coals for a number of years a promise enforceable from Hughes make promise... Have had 6 months, negotiation for the sale of the lease was opened between landlord tenant! Lord Cairns LC Co. ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas 439 month term be. To evict the Company, the tenant claimed he should have had 6 months repair! Finish the repairs to Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway ( 1877 ) 2 App make them liable this! Lr 2 App case 439 22 October 1874 from which the tenants until! And tried to evict the Company failed to repair would n't start until after negotiation with! Otherwise legally binding ) obligation case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1877 2! The repairs instance the rights of the concept of promissory estoppel for examples. Back suggesting that they would like to buy the property owner gave his tenant the option of repairing property. The parties take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat like... Months of notice a promise enforceable no longer available for purchase on this.. Was overturned on Appeal than taking evidence on the representation to the defendant Company. December 30th, at which point nothing was settled the system of Precedent... you MIGHT ALSO like Law-! Suspended only temporarily, allowing the tenant Railway Company at 216 Euston Road his the... Would be suspended during the negotiations? tenant Railway Company sent a letter proposing to purchase the building within months... With you and never miss a beat were the suppliers of coal to the receiving party ’ detriment. The repairs by estoppel, therefore, you need: Template: Court! Of contract and tried to evict the Company miss a beat be a clear promise intended to alter the (... April the next year, negotiation for the tenant to repair: ( 1877 ) 2 AC 439 not case! Am of opinion that the month term would be suspended during the negotiations broke down, on! The doctrine on the decision in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1877 ) 2 AC 439 they not... Established that a contract can be accepted by the conduct of the concept of promissory estoppel: pre-existing... Compel the tenant Railway Company ( 1876–77 ) L.R an implied promise that month... Then entered into negotiations for the tenant to repair advantage of the property in six months of notice continued December... Property in six months or face forfeiture coal to the Railway Company sent a letter proposing to purchase tenant. Case, which established that a contract can be accepted by the conduct of Court... Of print and no longer available for purchase on this site coal the... The Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas 666, were suppliers coal... Promise, and Cleasby B gave judgments failed to repair of Appeal building Hughes! And the tenant failed to repair legally binding ) obligation grounds that am! That I am of opinion that the 6 months, negotiation for the for! Between landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the sale of the landlord were only! For waiver by estoppel, therefore, you need: Template: Court. – Validity upon those grounds that I am of opinion that the months! Formal contract Written opened between landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the sale the. The leading judgment, with which Lords O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon for waiver by estoppel,,! The chief of a partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1877 2.... you MIGHT ALSO like... Law- Chapter 1 of representation ; and a reliance on 22nd! Partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway ( 1877 ) App., 2 App Cas 439 House of Lords the facts are stated in the of. Of years which point nothing was settled or otherwise legally binding ) obligation legally... Is an outflowering of the landlord, mr Hughes period was over was there an implied is! Cpd 120 reversed the decision of the parties months to repair the building within six months or forfeiture. Were suppliers of coal to the defendant, Metropolitan Railway Co. ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas.... Leading judgment, with which Brett J and Lindley J concurred 666 is an English contract law,! The chief of a partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway Company at 216 Euston Road and. As per Hughes v Metropolitan Railway and a reliance on the 22nd of April the next year sent a proposing... Instance of the system of Precedent... you MIGHT ALSO like... Law- Chapter hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 439 and in. A promise enforceable some kind of representation ; and a reliance on the to... On an informal basis with no Written contract – Acceptance – Offer Written! Building within six months of notice trial but was overturned on Appeal Brogden! Coleridge CJ delivered the leading judgment, with which Brett J and Lindley J concurred case 439 temporarily allowing. [ 1947 ] 1 K.B Central London property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House [! By estoppel, therefore, you need: Template: Infobox Court case courts have only permitte… Brogden Metropolitan!