HUGHES Vs. METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY

HUGHES V METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY (1877)

This case was a occur in the year of 1877 in the House Of Loads.

PARTIES 

Appellant:-  Thomas Hughes

Respondent :- Metropolitan railway company

FACTS IN CASE

The Thomas Hughes who owned his property on lease to the metropolitan railway company at 216 euston road. Under the lease the hughes was entitle to compel the telnet to repair the lease building within a six month of notice . the notice  was send on 22 October 1874. The tenants had until April 22 1875 to finish the repair from 22 October 1874.

Now on November 28 the tenants metropolitan railway company send a letter proposing  of purchasing the lease property from hughes. Negotiations started and continued  till December 30, at which point nothing was settled.

Once the time the six month is over the landlord sued the tenants for the breach of contract. After this the tenants complete the repair in June. The hughes was successfully in trial but was an overturned an appeal, than after Hughes appeal on the Houses of lords.

ISSUE

Whether there is a implied promise that the month term would be suspended during the negotiations?

HELD

The houses of lord support the court of appeal, because, it would be unfair for the plaintiff to take the advantage of the defendants for negotiating with them and stalling, allowing the six month to them for expire and then sued them. Hence he find that this was not case.

They did not intended to take advantage of defendant. They simply said that six month period was over and therefore that it would be unfair to make liable in this case, the implied promise  is enough to allow Estoppel* to apply. 

Edited by Megha Jain