Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:30 +0100

From: Andrew Tettenborn

Subject: Estoppel Question

Instead of estoppel, might there be an opening here for restitution? I'm thinking of BFC v Parc [1999] 1 AC 221. There lenders lent to P in the belief (incorrect as it turned out) that O, another creditor, had agreed to subordinate its claim to the lenders'. O hadn't agreed. The lenders were subrogated to O's priority. In Jason's case Y lends to X thinking that it's getting priority over Z as and when Z lends. Why not say that in so far as Y's loan means that Z gets more, Y is subrogated to Z's claim in the insolvency?

Andrew T

Andrew Tettenborn
Bracton Professor of Law, University of Exeter, England

Tel: 01392-263189 (int +44-1392-263189)
Fax: 01392-263196 (int +44-1392-263196)
Cellphone: 07729-266200 (int +44-7729-266200)

Snailmail:
School of Law
University of Exeter
Amory Building
Rennes Drive
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>