wrote in message
news:286f2151-2e82-46f0-8679-f08e87d234ef@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:25 am, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
>
> Up to a point. "Mistake" in contract is not an equitable concept;
> promissory
> (as opposed to other versions) estoppel is; and there were many cases
> between 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 Hughes 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
No of course about it. They are two separate cases
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 439 and
Brogden v v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 666.
Although connected, Hughes is more commonly cited than Brogden,
because that it the decision Denning used in High Trees, not Brogden.
Got that?
|