On May 10, 12:06=A0pm, frediesm...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On May 10, 10:25=A0am, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
> Up to a point. "Mistake" in contract is not an equitable concept; promisso=
ry
> (as opposed to other versions) estoppel is; and there were many cases betw=
een Pinnel & HTH.
> Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877), anyone?
You use to fool me that you were a barrister: an MP: a member of the
Royal Family and you always supplied what on the face of it seemed
very plausible support, until we looked into your claims, as you knwo
Lord Gifford does not know you, but perhaps others can now see you
for
what you are a true con artist.
It is not *Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877*
It is Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877
And of course that deals with acceptence, now tell me again what the
issue is in this case you Barrister you...or is that your Royal
highness must be MISTAKEN
|