판결 이유
Proprietary estoppel can arise from indirect assurances. It is sufficient that the claimant reasonably understood the assurances to mean they would inherit property, even if the assurances were oblique rather than express.
사실관계
David Thorner worked unpaid on his cousin Peter's farm for nearly 30 years in the expectation of inheriting it. Peter made indirect remarks suggesting David would inherit but never made a clear promise. Peter died intestate.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held David had established proprietary estoppel. The assurances, though indirect, were sufficiently clear in context and David had relied on them to his detriment.
주요 인용문
"What matters is not the precise words used but whether the assurances were reasonably understood as a commitment on which the claimant was entitled to rely."
— Lord Walker
후속 처리
Leading modern authority on proprietary estoppel in domestic/agricultural contexts.