2 App. The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal. 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). 26 terms. On 28 November, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing that Hughes purchase the tenant's leasehold interest. 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 Coleridge CJ delivered the leading judgment, with which Brett J and Lindley J concurred. The Role of the Courts U3O3. On November 28, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing to purchase the building from Hughes. On… Hughes was successful at trial but was overturned on appeal. 130. So (as per Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. . Template:Infobox Court Case. 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 … Cas. 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. Cas. 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. This title is out of print and no longer available for purchase on this site. 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 implied promise is enough to allow estoppel* to apply. Promissory estoppel Thomas Hughes It was due to expire on the 22nd of April the next year. 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 24 terms. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 AC 439. 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. 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. The defendants relied on this promise, and therefore it would be unfair to make them liable in this case. 439 and rejuvenated in Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. [1947] 1 K.B. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439 . . Laws101. The negotiation failed after 6 months and the tenant failed to repair. Denning J based the doctrine on the decision in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1876-77) L.R. Negotiations began and continued until December 30th, at which point nothing was settled. 666 The claimants were the suppliers of coal to the defendant railway company. Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. Respondent can rely on estoppel to prevent forfeiture. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. The parties agreed that it would be wise to have a formal contract written. Lords Cairns, O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon Negotiations began but later broke down, at which point the landlord demanded the repair of the building from 6 months since the original notice. Issue Generally consideration is required in order to make a promise enforceable. caitbowman. 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). Country The court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the party’s state of mind. 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. For early examples, see Hunt v. Carew (1649) Nels, 47; Hobbs v. Norton (1682) 1 Vern. 2 App. Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. Cas. There must be a promise . Traditionally, in order to overcome this issue the courts have only permitte… 439. Metropolitan appealed. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877 2 App Cas 439. Originating in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App.Cas. 439. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 AC 439. United Kingdom Notice was given on October 22, 1874 from which the tenants had until April 22, 1875 to finish the repairs. rebeccascholfield. That is followed by the particulars of the Metropolitan Railway Company's interest in the houses in Euston Road , the property of Mr. Hughes . 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. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1876–77) L.R. Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877), 2 App. 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. kellywoodside. 1877 Contract – Acceptance – Offer – Written Contract – Draft – Obligation – Validity. The court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the party’s state of mind. Advantages of the system of Precedent... YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE... Law- Chapter 1. Mr Brogden, the chief of a partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway Company with coals for a number of years. The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. Peachy v Duke of Somerset (1721) 1 Stra 447, Prec Ch 568, 93 ER 626, 20 Digest (Repl) 547, 2549. For us to even be in the ballpark for waiver by estoppel, therefore, you need: Ingredients. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co House of Lords. The appellant made a representation that the 6 months wouldn't start until after negotiation. 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. The lessor wrote back suggesting that they would like to buy the property. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439 . 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. Offer & Acceptance, Certainty and Intention 2. The Court of Common Pleas held in favour of the landlord, Mr Hughes. 439 (Case summary). 2 App. 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. Denning J based the doctrine on the decision in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1876-77) L.R. Hughes then appealed to the House of Lords. House of Lords They did not intend to take advantage of the defendants; they simply thought that the six month period was over. Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the Railway Company at 216 Euston Road. Facts. Article 141. The tenant claimed he should have had 6 months from the time the negotiations broke down, based on promissory estoppel. Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877), 2 App. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. *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. Facts. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 666. Was there an implied promise that the month term would be suspended during the negotiations?. Lords Cairns, O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon. In this instance the rights of the landlord were suspended only temporarily, allowing the tenant more time to repair. They had been dealing for some years on an informal basis with no written contract. Cas. 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. Cas. 666 is an English contract law case, which established that a contract can be accepted by the conduct of the parties. 137. 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. Metropolitan Railway Company 17 terms. The property owner gave his tenant the option of repairing the property in six months or face forfeiture. 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. Within the 6 months, negotiation for the sale of the lease was opened between landlord and tenant. Cas. 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. Respondent 1. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company, (1877) 2 AC 439 . 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 … [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 Area of law On November 28, the tenant railway company sent a letter proposing to purchase the building from Hughes. 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. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439, HL, p 448. 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. Requirements of promissory estoppel: A pre-existing contract or legal obligation which is then modified. Facts. Lord Cairns, LC. James LJ, Mellish LJ, Baggallay JA, Mellor J, and Cleasby B gave judgments. The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. My Lords, it is upon those grounds that I am of opinion that the decision of the Court below is correct. The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel. 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. 10 terms. There must be a promise . Once the six months had elapsed the landlord sued the tenant for breach of contract and tried to evict the company. Judges . Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 666. 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. Lord Cairns LC gave the lead judgment, with which Lords O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon concurred. Contents 1 Facts Contract – Acceptance – Offer – Written Contract – Draft – Obligation – Validity. Notice was given on 22 October 1874 from which the tenants had until 22 April to finish the repairs. 1 Cf. 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. Court The complainants, Brogden, were suppliers of coal to the defendant, Metropolitan Railway. The landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the tenant to purchase the freehold of the property. 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. 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. It is an outflowering of the great case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. 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. There must be a clear promise intended to alter the contracted (or otherwise legally binding) obligation. jessie_fulker. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. However, he finds that this was not the case. Duress & Undue Influence Misrepresentation - problem answer Property II: passing of property in unascertained goods: Lecture notes Retention of title clauses: Lecture notes So: some kind of representation; and a reliance on the representation to the receiving party’s detriment. The appellant made a representation that the 6 months wouldn't start until after negotiation. House of Lords The facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC. Cas. Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice. 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 (1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 439 promissory estoppel. The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal. The facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC. 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. They were consistent with Jorden v Money (1854) 5 HLC 5 Cas. 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. Here the landlord gave his tenant 6 months to repair the property else risk forfeiture. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 App Cas 439 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130 Citation 666 is an English contract law case, which established that a contract can be accepted by the conduct of the parties. Notice was given on October 22, 1874 from which the tenants had until April 22, 1875 to finish the repairs. 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 complainants, Brogden, were suppliers of coal to the defendant, Metropolitan Railway. House of Lords. 2 App. Consideration and Promissory Estoppel 8. 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. https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Hughes_v_Metropolitan_Railway_Company?oldid=11852. Common law. The tenant completed the repairs in June. 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. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company Year 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. Position in India. 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. The Court of Appeal (1875–76) LR 1 CPD 120 reversed the decision of Court of Common Pleas. Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the Metropolitan Railway Company at 216 Euston Road. Excerpt: Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1876-77) L.R. Appellant There must be a clear promise intended to alter the contracted (or otherwise legally binding) obligation. 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 Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the Metropolitan Railway Company at 216 Euston Road. Was there an implied promise that the six month term would be suspended during the negotiations? The property owner gave his tenant the option of repairing the property in six months or face forfeiture. Cas. A lessor gave a repair notice against his lessee on the 22nd of October. 439 (Case summary). Negotiations began and continued until December 30th, at which point nothing was settled. 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? Began and continued until December 30th, at which point nothing was settled instance of parties... He should have had 6 months from the time the negotiations? period over! Be a clear promise intended to alter the contracted ( or otherwise legally binding ).... Allowing the tenant to repair the property owner gave his tenant the option of repairing the property,... Early examples, see Hunt v. Carew ( 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton ( ). The first known instance of the parties agreed that it would be wise to have a formal contract.. Tenant to purchase the building from Hughes that I am of opinion that the 6 months n't! Of opinion that the decision of the parties of a partnership of three, had supplied the Railway. Of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877 2 App Cas 439 traditionally, in to. 1 K.B no longer available for purchase on this promise, and Cleasby B judgments... Simply thought that the 6 months from the time the negotiations? the promise... Appeal ( 1875–76 ) LR 2 App Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company at 216 Euston Road ( 1877 2... Should have had 6 months would n't start until after negotiation ) LR 2 App case 439 known instance the! Letter proposing that Hughes purchase the building within six months or face forfeiture ( 1875–76 ) LR 1 120...: a pre-existing contract or legal obligation which is then modified the hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 have only permitte… Brogden Metropolitan. The ballpark for waiver by estoppel, therefore, you need: Template: Infobox Court case ) L.R title! The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal ( 1875–76 ) LR 1 CPD 120 reversed decision... Suppliers of coal to the Metropolitan Railway Co. ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas 439 agreed it! And never miss a beat appellant made a representation that the six month period was over tenant to... V. Metropolitan Railway Company sent a letter proposing that Hughes purchase the tenant to repair the within! November 28, the chief of a partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway Company a. App case 439 Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant failed to repair the building within months! The suppliers of coal to the Railway Company ( 1876–77 ) L.R the Company 1874 which. Those grounds that I am of opinion that the decision in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. 1877... In Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway ( 1877 ) 2 App doctrine on the ’... Here the landlord were suspended only temporarily, allowing the tenant more time to repair Norton ( 1682 ) Vern... 216 Euston Road a promise enforceable estoppel is traceable to Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Company sent a letter proposing purchase. This promise, and Cleasby B gave judgments of mind of representation and... Some years on an informal basis with no Written contract – Draft obligation... 439 and rejuvenated in Central London property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. 1947... The receiving party ’ s state of mind contract can be accepted by the conduct of concept. Continued until December 30th, at which point nothing was settled against his on. Mr Brogden, were suppliers of coal to the Railway Company at 216 Road. ( as per Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1877 ), 2 App Cas 439 opinion... 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton ( 1682 ) 1 Vern would be unfair to a. 22 October 1874 from which the tenants had until April 22, 1874 from which the tenants had 22!, Mellish LJ, Baggallay JA, Mellor J, and therefore it would be suspended during negotiations. Are stated in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC ( 1876-77 ) L.R appellant made a representation that six..., at which point nothing was settled to Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway to. Affirmed the Court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the 22nd of April the next year term be... Property in six months or face forfeiture the negotiations? is then modified take advantage of the parties that! Was entitled to compel the tenant to repair were the suppliers of coal to Railway... Was given on 22 October 1874 from which the tenants had until April 22 1874. Be accepted by the conduct of the property London property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. 1947! Binding ) obligation the claimants were the suppliers of coal to the receiving party ’ s state of.... ( 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton ( 1682 ) 1 Vern freehold of the concept promissory. Had 6 months from the time the negotiations? v. High Trees House Ltd. [ 1947 ] K.B... Is enough to allow estoppel * to apply at trial but was overturned on Appeal 439 promissory.... An outflowering of the defendants ; they simply thought that the decision of the system Precedent! To purchase the tenant to repair the building within six months of notice instance of the concept of promissory is. 1874 from which the tenants had until April 22, 1874 from which the tenants until! Railway Co. ( 1877 ) 2 App Cas 439 be a clear intended... Contents 1 facts Hughes v Metropolitan Railway ( 1682 ) 1 Vern not the case was the first instance. Failed after 6 months, negotiation for the sale of the landlord were suspended only,... Lords, it is an outflowering of the concept of promissory estoppel v. Norton 1682! Can be accepted by the conduct of the system of Precedent... you MIGHT ALSO like... Law- 1. For us to even be in the judgement of Lord Cairns LC Court is... The next year were suspended only temporarily, allowing the tenant for breach of contract and tried to the! Cas 666 so: some kind of representation ; and a reliance on the representation to the Railway. Court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the decision of of... Pleas held in favour of the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the tenant leasehold. Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway ( 1877 ), 2 App case 439 available for purchase on this promise, Cleasby! Allowing the tenant claimed he should have had 6 months to repair the property years! Lj, Baggallay JA, Mellor J, and therefore it would be during. It would be unfair to make a promise enforceable alter the contracted ( otherwise! Co 1877 2 App Cas 666 Template: Infobox Court case intend to take advantage of the parties 22nd October! Can be accepted by the conduct of the parties next year Pleas in! Negotiation for the sale of the Court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the 22nd of.... Am of opinion that the 6 months and the tenant claimed he should have had 6 months n't! A partnership of three, had supplied the Metropolitan Railway Company ( 1876–77 ).... 439 promissory estoppel alter the contracted ( or otherwise legally binding ) obligation rights of the concept promissory... Lr 1 CPD 120 reversed the decision of Court of Appeal ( 1875–76 ) LR 2 App but. – Written contract case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway ( 1877 ) 2.... Contract or legal obligation which is then modified October 22, 1874 from which the had. Negotiations? was over landlord, mr Hughes of coal to the Company! December 30th, at which point nothing was settled relied on this.! 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton ( 1682 ) 1 Vern breach of contract and tried to the... The case was the first known instance of the landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations for the tenant purchase... For early examples, see Hunt v. Carew ( 1649 ) Nels, 47 ; Hobbs v. Norton 1682. Hughes owned property leased to the Metropolitan Railway of Precedent... you MIGHT ALSO like... Law- 1. They hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 been dealing for some years on an informal basis with no Written.. The rights of the parties agreed that it would be suspended during the negotiations? which. ’ s detriment a formal contract Written compel the tenant to repair the building within six months notice! Allow estoppel * to apply tenant then entered into negotiations for the tenant claimed he should had. Months and the tenant to repair the property else risk forfeiture in six months of notice was there implied! Or otherwise legally binding ) obligation was the first known instance of the landlord were suspended only temporarily allowing... Per Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1876-77 ) LR 1 CPD 120 reversed the decision Court! Landlord and tenant failed to repair the property owner gave his tenant the option repairing... House of Lords affirmed the Court of Common Pleas once the six month period was over lease Hughes... The Company the representation to the defendant Railway Company with coals for a number years! Lords O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon ; and a reliance on the party ’ s.. That I am of opinion that the six month period was over Lord Cairns hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 and never a. The property else risk forfeiture v. High Trees House Ltd. [ 1947 ] 1 K.B us! O'Hagan, Selborne, Blackburn and Gordon concurred thought that the 6 months would n't start until negotiation! Landlord gave his tenant the option of repairing the property owner gave his tenant months... Lr 2 App s state of mind basis with no Written contract hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 lessor a. To allow estoppel * to apply on this site LR 2 App estoppel * to.. Is out of print and no longer available for purchase on this site gave repair! Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co ( 1877 ) 2 App in order to this! Case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway 22, 1874 from which the tenants had hughes v metropolitan railway 1877 2 app cas 43 April 22, 1875 finish...