Central London Properties v. High Trees House - Case Study Example

Once a certain matter has been decided by a higher court applying the rules and law laid down through the ordinance affecting that particular issue, then for lower courts it will become a precedent to be followed, save in some conditions when the facts of two cases can be distinguished by the lower court. There is a two-fold relationship between the two. Once a law has been drafted and implemented in the form of ordinance then it is for the courts to decide cases in the light of the existing law.

But sometimes when there are certain loopholes in the law or some kind of ambiguity is there then the court can adjudicate over that matter and it becomes a precedent decision to be followed by the lower courts and executive too. An ordinance once drafted and notified by the govt. becomes a law and if it concerns commercial law then it automatically becomes a source as from then on the business activities have to conducted according to the new or amended rules laid down by that particular ordinance.

Similarly, when a higher court for e.g. the supreme court gives a decision on a commercial dispute and in the process gives a new interpretation to the law applicable to it and gives a new meaning to it then from there on it becomes a precedent for the lower courts and the executive to follow and can be considered as a source of commercial law for that matter.But after the war was finished the demand increased again and there was a hundred percent occupancy. CLPT sued HT for the full cost of the lease, as per the original agreement.

However, the Court dismissed the petition on the rule of Promissory Estoppel, which means that one party to a Contract indicates in certain terms to the second party that he (the first party) will not insist on his full rights under the contract, and based upon that promise the second party does or abstains from doing a certain act. The Second Party after making a certain promise can not go back and claim its full rights. The Court applied the above principle in this case and said that the agreement to reduce the rent was a promise between both parties and subsequent to that HT has acted on that promise, now at this stage CLPT can not be allowed to claim all its rights according to the original agreement as HT has already acted on the promise given by CLPT and it will be subject to Promissory Estoppel. 3) In this case, there was a contract between Claudine who operates an import /export company in Tsuen Wan and a transport services company KCR through its manager for a load of a client's furnishing supplies to be sent by train to Guang Zhou.

Though nothing was mentioned on the written contract about when the journey will be made but according to the principles of contract law where, by the contract, a promisor is to perform his promise without application by the promise, and no time for performance is specified, the engagement must be performed within a reasonable time. It is liable for damages. If KCR has followed all the terms agreed in between them then, in that case, the exemption clause would have come in play. So I will advise Claudine to sue KCR for damages for the value of the goods as well as the profits she had been deprived of due to loss of goods and a business transaction.