Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

wing asked in 政治及管治法律及道德 · 1 decade ago

contract law問題~急 唔該

我有份law既功課唔識做~

要趕交

題目係~

mark orally promised to let his flat to clara. clara felt very happy and immediately hired a decoration company to renovate the flat and paid $10000. on completion of the renovation and before clara moving in, mark refused to honour his promise and refused to let the flat to clara.

Can Clara enforce the promise of mark?

唔洗多~不過想大家比d main point 既方向我我自己慢慢寫

2 Answers

Rating
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    This question encompasses concepts from Land Law.

    An agreement to create a leasehold estate must satisfy s.3 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance unless it satisfies s.6(2). Section 3 states that a contract to grant a lease must be in writing and signed by the parties.

    Since the contract in question is oral, it does not satisfy s.3. If it is to be enforceable, it must satisfy s.6(2).

    Section 6(2) states that a contract to grant a lease taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding 3 years at rack rent need not satisfy s.3.

    The problem with appling s.6(2) is that we have no information as to whether the lease took effect at the moment C took possession. Note that the date of moving in is not necessarily equivalent to the date of possession.

    Assuming that the lease did not take effect in possession, the lease is valid but unenforceable.

    But C can still enforce M's promise in another way: estoppel.

    As promissory estoppel cannot be used as a sword, C cannot use it to enforce M's promise.

    C can however use proprietary estoppel. There are three elements to it:

    1) assurance (that C has an interest i.e. lease over the land)

    2) detrimental reliance

    3) Unconscionability

    I won't go into details but I guess the 3 elements can be made out. So there's a good chance proprietary estoppel can succeed.

    How is this a contract law question? This is more in the scope of land law.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    She can't really enforce it because she does not own the right of procession. But she has the right to sue him for damage.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.