Change of position (Andrew Tettenborn, 16 Dec 1999)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Andrew Tettenborn
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:23:56
Re:	Change of position

A predictable, but still noteworthy, decision from Harrison J. a few weeks ago.

I decide to cash in a life policy: I ask the company how much they'll give me: they give me a figure. I accept that figure; they pay me. They then find the figure was wholly excessive because of their accounting cock-up. I've since spent part of the loot in such a way as to qualify for a change of position defence.

I obviously have a defence as far as I have changed my position: but since there's also a representation by the company can I rely on Avon v Howlett to hang onto the lot? No: quite unconscionable to use estoppel that way, says Harrison J, and since Lipkin Gorman Avon v Howlett requires no such response.

See Scottish Equitable v Derby, unrep (I think) 30/9/99. On casetrack.

Andrew Tettenborn MA LLB
Bracton Professor of Law

Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (international)
Fax: 01392-263196 / +44-392-263196 (international)
Personal Fax: 0870-1305721 / +44-870-1305721 (international)

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

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.