Proprietary Estoppel Case Study
Proprietary Estoppel is when, one party (Y) knowingly encourages another (Z) to act, or acquiesces in the others (Z) action, to his (Z) detriment in the belief that he (Z) has or will have some property right against the first party (Y). For example, for instance John has a house, and Bakar took care of the house and did renovations to the house and stayed in the house. After John passes, Bakar would have an interest over the house. The classic case whereby the the Malaysian courts were certain that the principles of the Proprietary Estoppel was laid on is the case of Ramsden v Dyson whereby the three main elements where introduced which according to Lord Walker in the case of Thorner v Major , where it was held that the principle of proprietary …show more content…
However, proving a claim towards a proprietary estoppel was partly difficult to be established as the courts became less convenient and the burden proof lied on the part of the defendant to prove that the claimant to the property did not have to rely on the assurances that were made …show more content…
In the judgement by Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ it was held that ‘Proprietary estoppel is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a person who spends money on improving the property of another has no right to claim reimbursement or any proprietary interest in the property but unlike with the principles of promissory estoppel, the principle of proprietary estoppel has a permanent effect when it operates in its effects also to give out a valid cause of
Evans V. Alicia Mandolin Case Digest
667 Words | 3 PagesMitchell made the foregoing misrepresentations of fact to and concealed the true facts from Mildo/Perlow when he sold the house to them with the intent of inducing them to purchase it. Mitchell intended or had reason to expect that the misrepresentations and half-truths would be repeated to subsequent purchasers of the residents who would rely on them. The Court held that despite Mitchell was two sales removed from the plaintiff, he used his construction expertise to conceal the true condition of the property and knew there was a strong likelihood that the deception would be passed on to a subsequent
Case Peterson V. Therma Builders
409 Words | 2 PagesIn addition, the final summary judgment contains no set off for the amount of the restitution ordered. Further, there is nothing in the record to establish that the damages awarded in the final summary judgment compensate Therma Builders for damages not already awarded in the restitution order (FindLaw's). The final summary judgement was affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further
Mt. Laurel Case Summary
597 Words | 3 PagesOn the date of 2006, December 7th, regarding the court case: Mount Laurel Township vs. MiPro Homes L.L.C, the Appellate Division of Superior Court reversed the ruling of a trial Court. The ruling by the Appellate Division of Superior Court was later affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme court, and the United States Supreme Court. The trial court entered an injunction – preventing actions against MiPro Home’s L.L.C.’s 16.3 acre parcel – dismissing Mount Laurel’s case. The appellate court adjudicated that, Mount Laurel Township had not improperly exercised eminent domain in condemning the 16.3-acre parcel. Before examining the court case Mount Laurel Township vs. MiPro Homes L.L.C., it is important to understand the past legislation of the municipality and the state.
The Case Of Ms. Borne Under 26 US C. 5845
1084 Words | 5 PagesThe trial court convicted Ms. Borne under 26 U.S.C. 5845(f)(3) and sentenced her to 12-months in prison. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the conviction was proper based on the evidence presented at trial. According to the court of appeals, the prosecution proved—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Ms. Borne’s items: (1) could be readily assembled in a destructive device and (2) were designed, or intended for use as a destructive device. This was a reversible error. A.
Mt. Laurel Case Study
1541 Words | 7 PagesOn the date August 2nd 2005, regarding the court case: Mount Laurel Township vs. MiPro Homes L.L.C., the Appellate Division of Superior Court reversed the ruling of a trial Court. The trial court entered an injunction – preventing actions against MiPro Home’s 16.3-acre parcel and dismissing Mount Laurel’s case. The ruling by the Appellate Division of Superior Court was later affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme court, and the United States Supreme Court. The Appellate Division adjudicated that Mount Laurel Township had not improperly exercised eminent domain in condemning the 16.3-acre parcel. Was Mount Laurel justified in confiscating private land because the municipality did not want a 23 single-home development on the MiPro site, and would
Discussion Board Forum 2 Case Summary
1187 Words | 5 PagesDiscussion Board Forum 2 Case Study Martin has decided to retire after he spent many years as a deputy police officer in a small town in North Carolina and as a detective in Raleigh. During his years as an officer of the law and order, he deiced to invest in some properties in the state. One of the properties is in the blue ridge mountains in North Carolina and the other real estate is on the North Carolina coast. The real property at the mountain was purchased 31 years ago as a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship with his friends. The second property located on the North Carolina coast is been taken by eminent domain by city authorities to make space for new development and business around the area.
Rhalys Case Study
807 Words | 4 PagesThe City asserts that it was entitled to an opportunity to cure the discovery failure before sanctions could be awarded. Dismissal with prejudice is a sanction that should be imposed only in those rare instances where the conduct of a party is so egregious that no other sanction will meet the demands of justice.” The appellees sued the City, seeking damages allegedly suffered by them when Eubanks Creek overflowed ad flooded their
Mark Congini Case Brief Essay
1110 Words | 5 PagesIn deciding this case, the court also looked at Section 341 of the Restatement of Torts. This section is titled “Activities Dangerous to Licensees,” and it states that people who own land may be held liable for others physical harm only if the person is unable to foresee or realize the danger associated with the action or if they do not know the risk involved with their activities. It
Arnold V Yellowtone Mountain Club Summary
1678 Words | 7 PagesArgument Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party can show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cecil v. Cardinal Drilling Co., 244 Mont. 405, 409, 797 P.2d 232, 234 (1990); Mont. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A material fact involves the elements of the cause of action or defenses at issue to an extent that necessitates resolution of the issue by a trier of fact. Arnold v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 2004 MT 284, ¶ 15, 323 Mont. 295, 100 P.3d 137.
Supreme Court Case Analysis Of Kelo Vs. New London
1058 Words | 5 PagesAnalysis of Kelo vs. New London The unpopular Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs. New London has broken many citizens trust in having secured property rights. In Kelo vs. New London, the City of New London was condemning the property of several homeowners, in order to sell the land to private developers that would use the land to make a retail condo development. The local government approved the new development in order to gain higher tax revenue and to bring more jobs to the area. Homeowners who believed that their waterfront residence was being unfairly taken contested the City’s actions in court.
Turner V Hershey Chocolate Case Analysis
955 Words | 4 PagesThe appellant essential accommodation claim went to trial but court excluded evidence regarding to disability. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However the issue should have been decided by jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual.
Carl M. Miles Case Study
348 Words | 2 PagesCase: Carl M. Miles, et al., vs City council of Augusta, Georgia, et al. 710 F.2d 1542 Facts: In 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Miles were conducting an activity where they utilized a kitten’s linguistic ability for a course of speech therapy which enabled them to obtain moneys from passersby in the City of Augusta, Georgia. After being reported to the police, Mr. and Mrs. Miles were told they would have to purchase a $50 business license for a business and the activity would be taxable in accordance with City of Augusta’s Business License Ordinance. Mr. and Mrs. Miles eventually challenged the constitutionality of the Business License Ordinance enacted by City of Augusta, Georgia. Procedural History: Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Miles brought the case to
Sherman Anti Trust Act By Harold Evans
1025 Words | 5 PagesEvans argues that all possible violations of the Anti-Trust Act could be divided into one of two categories: contracts in restraints of trade, and restrictions on competition. By dividing potential cases into these groups and applying different means of measurement, Evans claims one can discern more accurately which side of the legal line each case falls. Evans surmises that, in the case of contracts in restraint of trade, “applying the common law test of reasonableness” (Evans pg. 72) stands as the best means of measuring a contract’s legal validity. This changes when considering restraints on competition, in which Evans claims the “test of extent” (Evans, pg. 72) to be the most accurate means of testing legality. Evans defends his hypothesis by applying this procedure to all the Supreme Court cases between 1890 and 1910.
Dred Scott V. Stanford Case Analysis
635 Words | 3 PagesTherefore, nobody can prohibit the restrictive boundary where someone else can buy property. In fact, the action of the state court in requiring the precise covenant deprives the petitioner of the rights that is assured by the Fourteenth Amendment and the acts of
Pros And Cons Of Eminent Domain
1490 Words | 6 PagesEminent domain has been around a long time, codified into the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, protecting citizens from the seizure of private property by the government without just compensation. It is the power of a government agency or limited types of private companies to involuntarily acquire private property rights in exchange for the payment of just compensation (2013). The government’s right to eminent domain is a very big topic. Eminent domain in today’s society is rarely noticed, and what good that comes out of its use is sometimes unknown.
More about Proprietary Estoppel Case Study
Evans V. Alicia Mandolin Case Digest
667 Words | 3 PagesCase Peterson V. Therma Builders
409 Words | 2 PagesMt. Laurel Case Summary
597 Words | 3 PagesThe Case Of Ms. Borne Under 26 US C. 5845
1084 Words | 5 PagesMt. Laurel Case Study
1541 Words | 7 PagesDiscussion Board Forum 2 Case Summary
1187 Words | 5 PagesRhalys Case Study
807 Words | 4 PagesMark Congini Case Brief Essay
1110 Words | 5 PagesArnold V Yellowtone Mountain Club Summary
1678 Words | 7 PagesSupreme Court Case Analysis Of Kelo Vs. New London
1058 Words | 5 PagesTurner V Hershey Chocolate Case Analysis
955 Words | 4 PagesCarl M. Miles Case Study
348 Words | 2 PagesSherman Anti Trust Act By Harold Evans
1025 Words | 5 PagesDred Scott V. Stanford Case Analysis
635 Words | 3 PagesPros And Cons Of Eminent Domain
1490 Words | 6 Pages