Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:41:40 -0500
Estoppel and Repudiation
those interested, the PC has just released a new decision that applies
and explains the basic concepts of repudiation, fundamental breach
and estoppel (see Super
Chem Products Limited v. American Life and General Insurance Company
Limited and Others).
a very cursory read everything seems as one would expect, except
for the following statement in para. 23 that “the mere fact that
a party has continued to negotiate with the other party about the
claim after the limitation period had expired, without anything
being agreed about what happens if the negotiations break down,
cannot give rise to a waiver or estoppel: Hillingdon
London Borough Council v ARC Ltd (No 2)  3 EGLR 97, at
104, per Arden LJ; Seechurn v ACE Insurance SA  2 Lloyd's
LR 390.” I wonder how that statement of the law squares with Hughes
v. Metropolitan Railway Co. which seems to posit otherwise?
Perhaps "mere" is the key?
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next