ERRINGTON v. ERRINGTON & WOOD
[1952] 1 KB 290
Case Summary
[Unilateral Contract]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGES: Denning, Somervell, Hodson LJJ
Facts: Father bought a house for his son and daughter-in-law. He paid £250 as a down payment and put the house title in his name. He told his daughter-in-law that if they paid off the remaining mortgage (£500) in weekly instalments, he would transfer the title to them when the house was completely paid for. He died before they paid it all off. The late Father's widow then sued for the home.
Issue: Does the young couple have a contractual right to continue paying instalments, and upon completion of payments, take title of the house? Does their agreement remain binding despite the father's death?
Ratio: Most important judgement given by Lord Denning Within a unilateral contract, there is an implied promise not to revoke once the performance has commenced. The father's promise was a unilateral contract. When the promise is unilateral, performance is equal to acceptance. He could not revoke it once the couple entered the act's performance. As long as the young couple fulfil their side of the contract (continue paying instalments), the contract remains binding, and they will have the property transferred to them once the payments are completed. He could not revoke it once the couple entered on the act's performance, but it would cease to bind him and could be revoked if they left it incomplete and unperformed, which they have not done. The father's implied intention was to keep the house in their possession if they paid the mortgage. The couple were on a license, short of a tenancy but a contractual, or at least equitable right to remain, which would grow into good, equitable title as soon as the mortgage was paid. Thus, they had the right to stay lawfully but not ownership rights. This judgment protects the party's interest in acting on the offeror's promise.
Held: Judgement for the Defendant. Appeal dismissed.
Ishika Tanwar
コメント