000			01409cab a22003015a 4500
001			L143878
008			080604e20080531xxk f 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u143878
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aBarrison, Ben
245	0	4	_aThe path to equity
260			_c2008
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0821) 31 May 2008, 130-132(3)
520			_aDiscusses the application of the legal principle of estoppel to commercial property deals. Notes that this is being used increasingly as a means of redress when commercial deals are reneged upon. Notes that promissory estoppel cannot be claimed in order to create a new cause of action. Similarly, estoppel by convention has yet to be shown to be relevant in such cases. Shows that proprietary estoppel can be used in certain circumstances. Case law.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aEYESTORM LTD V HOPTONACRE HOMES LTD
650	2	4	_aLAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989
650	2	4	_aMCCAUSLAND V DUNCAN LAWRIE LTD
650	2	4	_aCOMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS V TERRACE HILL (STOCKTON) LTD
650	2	4	_aANDERSON ANTIQUES (UK) LTD V ANDERSON WHARF (HULL) LTD AND AKRILL
650	2	4	_aLAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002 S77
650	2	4	_aCOBBE V YEOMAN'S ROW MANAGEMENT LTD
650	2	4	_aHOPPER V HOPPER
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
700	1		_aRedman _bNicholas
942			_n0
999			_c80295 _d80295