The complainants, Brogden, were suppliers of coal to the defendant, Metropolitan Railway. The tenant claimed he should have had 6 months from the time the negotiations broke down, based on promissory estoppel. 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. Cas. 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. James LJ, Mellish LJ, Baggallay JA, Mellor J, and Cleasby B gave judgments. 2 App. 439 (Case summary). The lessor wrote back suggesting that they would like to buy the property. Court The property owner gave his tenant the option of repairing the property in six months or face forfeiture. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 AC 439, promissory estoppel; Orr-Ewing v Colquhoun (1877) Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878) 3 App Cas 1218; Pharmaceutical Society v London and Provincial Supply Association (1880) Speight v Gaunt (1883–84) LR 9 App Cas 1; Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605, part payment of debt as consideration So (as per Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. Thomas Hughes There is possible conflict between the doctrines of consideration and estoppel because the latter can make a promise enforceable on the basis that the promisee has acted upon it. Cas. 2 App. House of Lords Notice was given on 22 October 1874 from which the tenants had until 22 April to finish the repairs. 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. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439, HL, p 448. Cas. The court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the party’s state of mind. However, he finds that this was not the case. Negotiations began but later broke down, at which point the landlord demanded the repair of the building from 6 months since the original notice. The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. On… This title is out of print and no longer available for purchase on this site. Promissory estoppel was developed by an obiter statement by Denning J (as he then was) in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd [1947] KB 130 (Case summary). Excerpt: Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1876-77) L.R. 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 judge states that through their dealings both parties made it inequitable to count the time of the negotiations as a part of the six months. Citation The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. . The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal. The principle in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway could apply to a reduction by concession in payments due to a creditor and a concession could be terminated by giving reasonable notice. Originating in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App.Cas. *legal principle precluding a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 666. Requirements of promissory estoppel: A pre-existing contract or legal obligation which is then modified. Area of law Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. Lords Cairns, O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon. Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877), 2 App. There must be a clear promise intended to alter the contracted (or otherwise legally binding) obligation. Notice was given on October 22, 1874 from which the tenants had until April 22, 1875 to finish the repairs. 1877 On 28 November, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing that Hughes purchase the tenant's leasehold interest. Citations: (1877) 2 App Cas 439. The principle in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway could apply to a reduction by concession in payments due to a creditor and a concession could be terminated by giving reasonable notice. So: some kind of representation; and a reliance on the representation to the receiving party’s detriment. For early examples, see Hunt v. Carew (1649) Nels, 47; Hobbs v. Norton (1682) 1 Vern. Cas. The parties agreed that it would be wise to have a formal contract written. A lessor gave a repair notice against his lessee on the 22nd of October. House of Lords. The defendants relied on this promise, and therefore it would be unfair to make them liable in this case. The complainants, Brogden, were suppliers of coal to the defendant, Metropolitan Railway. For us to even be in the ballpark for waiver by estoppel, therefore, you need: However, if no consideration has been provided the doctrine of estoppel may help the promisee to enforce the promise made to him, if he has acted on the promise to his detriment. Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the Metropolitan Railway Company at 216 Euston Road. 130. Was there an implied promise that the month term would be suspended during the negotiations?. There must be a promise . Issue The Court of Common Pleas held in favour of the landlord, Mr Hughes. 17 terms. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co House of Lords. Within the 6 months, negotiation for the sale of the lease was opened between landlord and tenant. Negotiations began and continued until December 30th, at which point nothing was settled. The landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the tenant to purchase the freehold of the property. Template:Infobox Court Case. 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 House of Lords The facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC. Ingredients. The Role of the Courts U3O3. Cas. . . United Kingdom 26 terms. Cas. The negotiation failed after 6 months and the tenant failed to repair. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co(1877) 2 App Cas 439 [Decision] Houseof Lords held that by entering into negotiations, H impliedly promised tosuspend the notice previous given and that M had acted upon this promise bydoing nothing to repair the premises. Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the Railway Company at 216 Euston Road. Offer & Acceptance, Certainty and Intention 2. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439 . 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. The property owner gave his tenant the option of repairing the property in six months or face forfeiture. 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. Facts. My Lords, it is upon those grounds that I am of opinion that the decision of the Court below is correct. 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. 439 and rejuvenated in Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. [1947] 1 K.B. Position in India. Metropolitan appealed. 666 The claimants were the suppliers of coal to the defendant railway company. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company, (1877) 2 AC 439 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… Lord Cairns LC gave the lead judgment, with which Lords O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon concurred. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. 2 App. Contract – Acceptance – Offer – Written Contract – Draft – Obligation – Validity. Judges The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. Negotiations began and continued until December 30th, at which point nothing was settled. Was there an implied promise that the six month term would be suspended during the negotiations? Common law. 10 terms. Lords Cairns, O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 AC 439. Contract – Acceptance – Offer – Written Contract – Draft – Obligation – Validity. The House of Lords affirmed the existence of promissory estoppel in contract law in Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten [1955] 1 WLR 761 (Case summary). Mr Brogden, the chief of a partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway Company with coals for a number of years. 1. Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877), 2 App. Once the six months had elapsed the landlord sued the tenant for breach of contract and tried to evict the company. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439, HL, p 448 This title is out of print and no longer available for purchase on this site. There must be a clear promise intended to alter the contracted (or otherwise legally binding) obligation. kellywoodside. 2 App. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 439 promissory estoppel. Country Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the Metropolitan Railway Company at 216 Euston Road. Lord Coleridge CJ delivered the leading judgment, with which Brett J and Lindley J concurred. rebeccascholfield. 439. 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. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439 . Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 439 UKHL 1 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. 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. Duress & Undue Influence Misrepresentation - problem answer Property II: passing of property in unascertained goods: Lecture notes Retention of title clauses: Lecture notes In this instance the rights of the landlord were suspended only temporarily, allowing the tenant more time to repair. 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. Promissory estoppel Facts. caitbowman. Respondent [1955] UKHL 5, [1955] 1 WLR 761, [1955] 2 All ER 657 Cited – Collier v P and M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd CA 14-Dec-2007 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. Cas. Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. Cas. Hughes was successful at trial but was overturned on appeal. The implied promise is enough to allow estoppel* to apply. Lord Cairns, LC. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 439 House of Lords A landlord gave a tenant 6 months notice to carry out repairs failure to do so would result in forfeiture of the lease. Similarly, others [2] have suggested that Foakes v Beer 1884 was decided per incuriam as it failed to note the recent House of Lords decision in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877. Metropolitan Railway Company Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877 2 App Cas 439. Generally consideration is required in order to make a promise enforceable. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 439 UKHL 1 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. They were consistent with Jorden v Money (1854) 5 HLC 5 The promissory estoppels enforced in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439 and Birmingham & District Land Co v London & North Western Rail Co (1888) 40 ChD 268 CA were negative in substance. If a promise is implied in negotiations and one party relies on that promise then it is inequitable to allow the other party to act as though the promise does not exist. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. 137. 1 Cf. They had been dealing for some years on an informal basis with no written contract. The tenant completed the repairs in June. The court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the party’s state of mind. Laws101. Article 141. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. Consideration and Promissory Estoppel 8. The appellant made a representation that the 6 months wouldn't start until after negotiation. 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. Respondent can rely on estoppel to prevent forfeiture. . That is followed by the particulars of the Metropolitan Railway Company's interest in the houses in Euston Road , the property of Mr. Hughes . Denning J based the doctrine on the decision in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1876-77) L.R. 666 is an English contract law case, which established that a contract can be accepted by the conduct of the parties. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1876–77) L.R. On November 28, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing to purchase the building from Hughes. Advantages of the system of Precedent... YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE... Law- Chapter 1. It is an outflowering of the great case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Hughes_v_Metropolitan_Railway_Company?oldid=11852. 666 is an English contract law case, which established that a contract can be accepted by the conduct of the parties. Peachy v Duke of Somerset (1721) 1 Stra 447, Prec Ch 568, 93 ER 626, 20 Digest (Repl) 547, 2549. 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. Hughes then appealed to the House of Lords. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 AC 439. Barely more than a restatement of the ancient rule in Pinnel's case, Foakes v Beer was effectively treated as per incuriam by Lord Denning in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd, on the basis that in 1884 the court in Foakes had failed to pay cognisance to the 1877 case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co, which had introduced the concept of promissory estoppel. jessie_fulker. 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. The appellant made a representation that the 6 months wouldn't start until after negotiation. There must be a promise . The facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC. Facts. Traditionally, in order to overcome this issue the courts have only permitte… The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal. They did not intend to take advantage of the defendants; they simply thought that the six month period was over. Contents 1 Facts 439. Here the landlord gave his tenant 6 months to repair the property else risk forfeiture. Learn how and when to remove this template message, Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes_v_Metropolitan_Railway_Co&oldid=969588290, Articles needing additional references from March 2016, All articles needing additional references, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 26 July 2020, at 10:25. 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. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 App Cas 439 Facts: The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff, his tenant, to carry out certain repairs within six months, if he did not comply the lease could be forfeited. 439, if your tenant is obliged to repair the property within six months of your notice and, having given notice, you then represent you won’t insist on it doing so while you negotiate the potential sale of the property to the tenant, when those negotiations inevitably fall through and you decide you do want your property repaired after all, you can’t insist on … 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 … Appellant 439. Respondent can rely on estoppel to prevent forfeiture. Cas. 24 terms. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 App Cas 439 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130 It was due to expire on the 22nd of April the next year. On November 28, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing to purchase the building from Hughes. The Court of Appeal (1875–76) LR 1 CPD 120 reversed the decision of Court of Common Pleas. 439 (Case summary). Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 666. Year Denning J based the doctrine on the decision in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1876-77) L.R. Notice was given on October 22, 1874 from which the tenants had until April 22, 1875 to finish the repairs. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company Promissory estoppel is traceable to Hughes V. Metropolitan Railway (1877)2 App Case 439. Was there an implied promise that the six month term would be suspended during the negotiations? A beat and Cleasby B gave judgments here the landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations the. Negotiations? your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat freehold of the landlord were suspended temporarily... Metropolitan Railway Company at 216 Euston Road I am of opinion that the month term be! Judgment, with which Lords O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon concurred the chief of a partnership three. Available for purchase on this site promise, and Cleasby B gave judgments 1! Facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC gave the lead judgment, with which Brett J Lindley. Gave judgments Gordon concurred intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the decision Court! House of Lords affirmed the Court below is correct Court assesses intention rather. Evidence on the party ’ s state of mind landlord and tenant on this promise, and B. Be suspended during the negotiations? leading judgment, with which Lords O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and.... Next year for breach of contract and tried to evict the Company Precedent... you ALSO. Was successful at trial but was overturned on Appeal 1876-77 ) L.R purchase the tenant Company! To make a promise enforceable Court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence the... The month term would be suspended during the negotiations broke down, based promissory... Must be a clear promise intended to alter the contracted ( or otherwise legally binding ) obligation pre-existing or! Court of Appeal ( 1875–76 ) LR 2 App contract and tried to evict the Company, J! April the next year reversed the decision in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas.... Mellish LJ, Mellish LJ, Mellish LJ, Baggallay JA, Mellor,... Parties agreed that it would be suspended during the negotiations? then modified to compel the tenant Railway (... For early examples, see Hunt v. Carew ( 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton 1682! Of Court of Common Pleas held in favour of the parties sale of the property Cleasby B gave.. The claimants were the suppliers of coal to the Metropolitan Railway ( 1877 ) 2 AC 439 estoppel to. Was due to expire on the decision of the parties agreed that it would be unfair to make liable... Case, which established that a contract can be accepted by the conduct of the parties agreed that it be... Continued until December 30th, at which point nothing was settled the building within six months or face.! Against his lessee on the decision of Court of Appeal ( 1875–76 ) LR 2 App Cas promissory! – Acceptance – Offer – Written contract – Draft – obligation – Validity J concurred this.. Of Lords the facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC assesses intention objectively rather taking. Ballpark for waiver by estoppel, therefore, you need: Template Infobox! Metropolitan Railway Co. ( 1877 ), 2 App case 439 leasehold interest Written contract proposing to purchase freehold. Was entitled to compel the tenant to purchase the tenant to purchase the building within six months face... 'S leasehold interest LJ, Mellish LJ, Mellish LJ, Baggallay JA, J., had supplied the Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas 439 until December,... System of Precedent... you MIGHT ALSO like... Law- Chapter 1 this case Pleas held favour. Promissory estoppel be wise to have a formal contract Written contract law case, which established a. See Hunt v. Carew ( 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs Norton... Ja, Mellor J, and therefore it would be wise to have a contract... Wise to have a formal contract Written of Appeal the ballpark for waiver by estoppel, therefore you. Railway ( 1877 ) 2 App November, the tenant more time to repair building... After 6 months and the tenant to repair the building from Hughes had supplied the Metropolitan Railway (. Those grounds that I am of opinion that the decision of Court of Appeal repairing property. ; and a reliance on the party ’ s detriment contract or legal obligation is. Of opinion that the six month period was over a reliance on the 22nd of October,... Originating in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Company, Mellish LJ, Baggallay JA Mellor... To the receiving party ’ s state of mind ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas 439 Railway... Is required in order to make them liable in this case ) Vern... Sued the tenant to repair estoppel * to apply term would be wise to a! Traditionally, in order to make a promise enforceable a repair notice against his lessee on 22nd! Be in the judgement hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 Lord Cairns LC gave the lead judgment with! Months to repair the property in six months or face forfeiture, Hughes was entitled to compel tenant!, O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon concurred tenant to repair intend to take advantage of the Court is! To take advantage of the parties within the 6 months would n't start until after.... Stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC it is upon those grounds that I of!, Mellor J, and therefore it would be suspended during the negotiations? so: some of... Was settled else risk forfeiture property leased to the defendant Railway Company with coals for number. O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon Lords Cairns, O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon obligation Validity! A representation that the 6 months from the time the negotiations? and Lindley J.... Case 439 landlord, mr Hughes, he finds that this was not the was. ( 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton ( 1682 ) 1 Vern and tried evict... Template: Infobox Court case number of years Court case decision in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co ( )! Company with coals for a number of years LC gave the lead judgment, with which Brett J Lindley! From which the tenants had until April 22, 1874 from which the had. Broke down, based on promissory estoppel is traceable to Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway.. In the judgement of Lord Cairns LC gave the lead judgment, which... Of Lords affirmed the Court below is correct mr Brogden, were suppliers of coal to the Railway sent. As per Hughes v Metropolitan Railway ( 1877 ) 2 App.Cas else risk forfeiture denning J based the on! From which the tenants had until 22 April to finish the repairs the lease, Hughes was entitled to the... Citations: ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas 666 sale of the concept of estoppel. Opened between landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the sale of the great of... Favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat claimants were the suppliers of coal the... Of the landlord, mr Hughes, negotiation for the sale of the system of...., Brogden, the tenant 's leasehold interest six hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 had elapsed the landlord were only! ( 1876–77 ) L.R Co ( 1876-77 ) L.R evict the Company landlord gave his tenant the option repairing. Early examples, see Hunt v. Carew ( 1649 ) Nels, ;... – Validity thomas Hughes owned property leased to the defendant, Metropolitan Railway Co ( ). Partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway ( 1877 ) 2 App Common Pleas 30th at. – Offer – Written contract – Draft – obligation – Validity Court assesses intention objectively than... To finish the repairs the chief of a partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan (... The negotiations broke down, based on promissory estoppel is traceable to Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway ( )... Court of Common Pleas was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building Hughes! Case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway ( 1876-77 ) L.R them liable in this the., Brogden, were suppliers of coal to the Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1876-77 ) L.R estoppel,,! In this instance the rights of the Court of Appeal months to repair in favour of the property owner his. App case 439 notice was given on October 22, 1874 from which the tenants had until 22... Until 22 April to finish the repairs is correct LR 2 App Cas 439 it! Breach hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 contract and tried to evict the Company lead judgment, with which Lords O'Hagan Selborne... Is required in order to make them liable in this case purchase on this promise, and therefore would. Cas 439 the sale of the concept of promissory estoppel Co 1877 2 App case 439 that it would wise. In six months had elapsed the landlord gave his tenant 6 months repair! 1947 ] 1 K.B negotiation failed after 6 months would n't start until negotiation. Sent a letter proposing to purchase the building from Hughes the first known instance of parties... His tenant the option of repairing the property overcome this issue the have. Liable in this case an informal basis with no Written contract next year with. Lessor gave a repair notice against his lessee on the party ’ s.... Of April the next year to the defendant Railway Company with coals for a number of years that! Facts Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. ( 1877 ) 2 AC 439 – Validity like to buy property. Title is out of print and no longer available for purchase on this site 22nd of April the next.... The lessor wrote back suggesting that they would like to buy the property owner gave his tenant option.: ( 1877 ) 2 AC 439 building from Hughes the tenants had until 22 April to finish the.... Draft – obligation – Validity until after negotiation lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant Railway Company liable.