Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Jeffrey Hackney |
| Date: |
Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:43:05 |
| Re: |
Change of position |
There is a full
report of this case dated 30.9.99 on New Law Online.
Jeffrey Hackney 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. AT Andrew Tettenborn MA LLB Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (international)
Snailmail:
---
Bracton Professor of Law
Fax: 01392-263196 / +44-392-263196 (international)
Personal Fax: 0870-1305721 / +44-870-1305721 (international)
School of Law,
University of Exeter,
Amory Building,
Rennes Drive,
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
