Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:41:40 -0500

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Estoppel and Repudiation

Dear Colleagues:

For those interested, the PC has just released a new decision that applies and explains the basic concepts of repudiation, fundamental breach and estoppel (see Super Chem Products Limited v. American Life and General Insurance Company Limited and Others).

From a very cursory read everything seems as one would expect, except for the following statement in para. 23 that “the mere fact that a party has continued to negotiate with the other party about the claim after the limitation period had expired, without anything being agreed about what happens if the negotiations break down, cannot give rise to a waiver or estoppel: Hillingdon London Borough Council v ARC Ltd (No 2) [2000] 3 EGLR 97, at 104, per Arden LJ; Seechurn v ACE Insurance SA [2002] 2 Lloyd's LR 390.” I wonder how that statement of the law squares with Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. which seems to posit otherwise? Perhaps "mere" is the key?

Cheers,

--
Jason Neyers
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

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