Goldsworthy v Brickell: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{box|“Sometimes laches is taken to mean undue delay on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting his claim and no more. Sometimes acquiescence is used to mean laches..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m Amwelladmin moved page Goldsworthy v Brickell - Case Note to Goldsworthy v Brickell |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{cn}}{{Cite|Goldsworthy|Brickell|[1987]|Ch|378}} is a case on the seldom talked-about topic of [[laches]]. | ||
:“Sometimes [[laches]] is taken to mean undue delay on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting his claim and no more. Sometimes acquiescence is used to mean [[laches]] in that sense. And sometimes [[laches]] is used to mean acquiescence in its proper sense, which involves a standing by so as to induce the other party to believe that the wrong is assented to. In that sense it has been observed that acquiescence can bear a close resemblance to [[promissory estoppel]].” (410A-C) | |||
{{c|Case Note}} | |||
Latest revision as of 19:07, 19 December 2020
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
Goldsworthy v Brickell 1987 Ch 378 is a case on the seldom talked-about topic of laches.
- “Sometimes laches is taken to mean undue delay on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting his claim and no more. Sometimes acquiescence is used to mean laches in that sense. And sometimes laches is used to mean acquiescence in its proper sense, which involves a standing by so as to induce the other party to believe that the wrong is assented to. In that sense it has been observed that acquiescence can bear a close resemblance to promissory estoppel.” (410A-C)