Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:46

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Yeoman's Row

Colleagues:

Just got around to reading this case and I have to say that it was very disappointing on the estoppel analysis. It’s almost as if it was decided in 1940. There is no mention of the Australian principle of equitable estoppel (or the writings of people like Cooke or Robertson), of s. 90 of the Restatement, nor any effort to examine if the claimant might have a claim based upon his detrimental reliance (as opposed to for his expectation or for the defendant's gain). I think I would give my student a C if they gave Lord Scott's answer on the exam (more or less correct with the cases but no sense if they thought any principle tied them together).

Am I alone in this view?

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Stevens   
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:54 am 
Subject: Yeoman's Row

Recovery of value of work done in anticipation of a contract which never arises. 5-0 claim allowed on the basis of unjust enrichment.

Plenty on proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts too.

Rather a stark contrast with the approach of the HC of A a few weeks ago.

-- 
Jason Neyers  
Associate Professor of Law &
Cassels Brock LLP Faculty Fellow in Contract Law 
Faculty of Law  
University of Western Ontario  
N6A 3K7 
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

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