Case Law :Errington v Errington & wood

SUMMARY OF THE CASE LAW

Plaintiff- Mother (Mrs. Errington)

Defendant- Son and daughter in Law ( Mr Errington and Mrs wood)

Country judge decided in favour of defendants and hence this appeal.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ( Judges- Denning, Somervell, Hodson LJJ)

Facts:

Father and husband of Mrs Errington brought a house for his son and daughter in law. He paid 250 euros as down payment and put the house in his own name. He told his son and daughter in law that if they paid all the weekly installments of the house (500 euros), he would transfer the house in their name, when the installment were complete. But before they paid all the installment, father died. Father’s widow sued for the house.

Issue :

Is the agreement with the father binding and does the couple have the right to continue the payment of installation and upon completion, transfer the house in their name?

Ratio :

In a unilateral promise, there is an implied promise that the offer or cannot revoke his offer once the performance has begun. In the present scenario, the father made a unilateral promise. And as soon as the couple paid the first installment, that led to an implied acceptance (in unilateral promise, performance is equal to acceptance). It cannot be revoked by him after the performance by the couple had begun. Now, as long as the couple keep on paying the weekly installments, the contract is binding and cannot be revoked. The offer can only be revoked if the couple stop paying the weekly installments. After the installments are complete, the couple can transfer the house in their name. There was an implied intention on father’s side that he will keep the possession in case the couple fails to pay all the installments, which they did not fail to do.

The couple in the case were on a licence, sort of contractual or one of equitable right to remain on, which would grow into an equitable title as soon the installments were paid. Thus they had the right to lawfully stay in the house

Held :

The judgement was given for the defendant and the appeal was dismissed.

Credits : Sushil Joon