Comments

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      This is an illustration of Lord Denning at his best. Clearly the nephew was not playing fair with his aunt, the widow of the coal merchant uncle.

      So Denning changed the rules! He made the only moral decision he could and then recommended the nephew to take his case on appeal to the House of Lords (now called the Supreme Court)

      The law lords had two choices – they could either overturn Denning’s decision that was patently the fair decision or they could, by process of extreme mental acrobatics, find a way in which Denning’s decision could be justified

      And that’s what they did. A legal representative of a deceased person is able to sue to enforce contracts entered into by the deceased.

      It’s good sense. When I die, if someone owes me money through a contract into which I entered before death, it’s common sense that my lpr should be able to recover money for my estate

      Ok?

  1. avatar says

    Mike your lectures a brilliant, However I am wondering that as the F4 exam has become partly MCQ do we still have the need to remember all the past case names for the new F4 Exam from December 2014.

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      No need now to remember case names!

      Pity really, they were fun

      PS in future, if you want a reply from the tutor, post your question on the “Ask the tutor” page – it was only by chance that I saw this!

  2. avatar says

    Good morning Mr Mike Little, please explain to me again that point of Doctrine of promissory estoppel, a bout the 1250 pound why the land lord didn’t get them back. Secondly a bout the creditors waiving the a mount so the business to continue operating. Under the exceptions to the rule in Pinnels case what if the creditor takes his money and supply the goods to other companies or he has to continue supply his commodities to only that particular company.

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      When a promise is given, and acted upon, the person making the promise is not allowed subsequently to go back on that promise. High Trees House case merely illustrates the point

      Creditors in an arrangement collectively agree with the administrator to accept a lower amount than was due to them and that agreement is then binding on all the creditors (so long as >75% in number and value voted in favour of the arrangement)

      I don’t understand your last point, sorry

  3. avatar says

    very true,he makes law very intresting.i had not very clear concepts of contract but wen i started listening to his lectures,i feel,i am far better than earlier.i just want to know,if i could get some tips regarding cambridge law peper.i am doing a level and i am taking law as a seperate subject so i have got much more than acca topics included.i have my contract paper after two days and i want to score a decent grade.looking forward to your reply.thanks.

Leave a Reply