Susan Bright and Ben McFarlane argue that, where A's conduct gives B a claim based on proprietary estoppel, A is always subject to a basic personal liability to B which persists even after a transfer by A to C of the land to which the estoppel claim relates. They go on to examine the practical operation and theoretical significance of this continuing personal liability.

A and B begin to negotiate a commercial bargain under which B is to acquire an interest in land in return for providing money or services to A. If B performs his side of the deal without a contract’s having been concluded, can B’s expectation nonetheless be enforced? The article focuses principally on proprietary estoppel and examines three recent cases: Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd; Kinane v Mackie-Conteh; and Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd. It is argued that the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Kinane is unnecessarily convoluted and depends on a flawed understanding of the scope of s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989.

This article rejects the contention that licences of land and "chattel leases" currently have proprietary effect. In so doing, it considers the means by which property rights can be identified and also the process by which rights can acquire proprietary status.

ISBN: 0010-8200

The article aims to support the general rule, applied in Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673, that a party in breach cannot claim for the value of services rendered or for the value of goods supplied under a contract unless he has an accrued contractual entitlement to be paid. It is argued, contrary to the prevailing academic view, that even where the party in breach confers a benefit upon the other party by the part performance of an entire obligation there is nothing unjust about such enrichment. Apparent exceptions to the rule are considered and it is argued that the one genuine exception, the quantum meruit claim to freight after a deviation proposed by the House of Lords in Hain Steamships Co. Ltd v. Tate & Lyle Ltd (1936) 41 Com. Cas. 350, does not undermine the validity of the rule. Rather, it suggests that any disapproval of the effects of the rule should focus not on the rule itself but on the anterior question, also analysed in the article, of which obligations should be viewed as entire.

ISBN: 0023-933X

This paper examines the source and scope of the right, belonging to a successful appellant, to recover money paid under a judgment. It is argued that the conventional analysis that the right exists to reverse an enrichment obtained by duress should be rejected. Rather, the right is best understood as a corollary of the procedural protection provided to a litigant by the possibility of challenging a judgment eg by appeal. The scope of the right is determined by the need to balance this protection for the appellant with the need to promote the utility of judgments. The result of this balancing process should be a right which does have the scope of a right based on unjust enrichment, but which can nonetheless only be understood in its procedural context.

ISBN: 1351-170X

This book provides a new perspective on property law. By setting out an underlying structure, it allows the reader to understand the fundamental principles of this difficult subject. By providing detailed coverage of individual topics, it show how those principles apply in practice. It has full coverage of both personal property law and land law, and detailed coverage of core topics in equity, trusts, commercial law and unjust enrichment.

ISBN: 978-1-84113-559-5

This article considers and contrasts the courts' attempts to tackle avoidance in relation to both tax and housing legislation. The limits of the sham doctrine are analysed, as are the techniques used by the courts to go beyond that doctrine. The lines of authority stemming from Furniss v Dawson [1984] AC 474 and Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417 are considered and conceptual weaknesses in the reasoning of the courts are exposed. The attempt to tackle avoidance through means of statutory interpretation, as set out by Lord Hoffman in MacNiven v Westmoreland [2003] 1 AC 311, is examined in both the tax and housing context and is found wanting. It is therefore concluded that the courts’ current approach to avoidance suffers from a crisis of legitimacy.

ISBN: 406964408

An argument in favour of the expansion of common law doctrines to protect pre-contractual reliance, including a comparative, doctrinal and economic assessment of the problem.