For a successful estoppel claim there must be more than a general sense of unconscionability. The claimant must show a belief he has a certain property right in the land or an expectation that he will acquire one.

Faxes were exchanged amounting to an offer and acceptance regarding the sale of land. The exchange did not create a valid land contract.

For a valid contract in land to exist, there must be one document containing all the terms and signed by both parties.

A letter regarding the sale of land, and which enclosed a plan identifying the land, was held not to constitute a valid contract under s 2 LP(MP)A 1989, as it had not been signed by both parties. Although both the letter and the plan had been signed by the vendor, the purchaser had only signed the plan. The typing of his name on the letter was not enough to constitute his signature.

It is the ‘incorporating document’ which must be signed by both parties. A ‘signature’ should be given its ordinary meaning.

A completion date set for a Sunday was changed in an exchange of letters that did not comply with s 2 LP(MP)A 1989. The variation of the completion date was thus ineffective and the original agreement stood.

When seeking to vary a material term of the contract, the variation itself must comply with s 2 LP(MP)A 1989.

An agreement for the grant of a lease coupled with an agreement that the tenant would carry out shop-fitting works in a specified time in return for payment by the landlord. The lease was granted, the tenant carried out the works, but the landlord refused to pay. An attempt by the landlord to argue there was just one contract which failed to incorporate all the terms in accordance with s 2 LP(MP)A 1989, and thus was invalid, was rejected.

The court found the existence of two agreements: one for the grant of the lease and one for the works. Thus the issue of the works need not have been incorporated in the same document as the lease for it to be enforceable.

An agreement related to the sale of a flat and furnishings, although the latter were not contained in the contract but in a separate schedule to which the contract made no reference. Upon removing the furnishings, the vendor’s defence was that there existed no valid contract containing all the terms expressly agreed between the parties, since the written agreement failed to incorporate the furnishings. This was rejected. Convincing evidence existed to establish that the parties had agreed upon the inclusion of the furnishings in the sale and thus the contract, once rectified, was enforced.

If a contract appears invalid for not containing all the terms expressly agreed between the parties, where there is convincing evidence that the parties had agreed upon the omitted term, the court may order rectification of the contract, thus making it valid.

The claimant had reached an oral agreement with the father of the defendant that, if the latter bought a house and the claimant conducted substantial building works to convert the house into flats, he would be given the ground-floor flats. In fact, the defendant bought the house. Unaware of this fact, the claimant carried out the works to the value of £9,000 and when the defendant sought to evict the claimant, the latter claimed an interest in the property. The court recognised the claimant had an interest in the property.

A person may be estopped from asserting the true legal position where it would be unconscionable to do so: where another has relied and acted upon a promise to their detriment.