Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co

Shortcuts: Differences, Similarities, Jaccard Similarity Coefficient, References.

Difference between Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd vs. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KB 130 (or the High Trees case) is an English contract law decision in the High Court. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co is a House of Lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd in his development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Similarities between Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co have 2 things in common (in Unionpedia): Estoppel, Tom Denning, Baron Denning.

Estoppel

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent, or "estop" (a person who performs this is estopped) a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word.

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Estoppel · Estoppel and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co · See more »

Tom Denning, Baron Denning

Alfred Thompson “Tom” Denning, Baron Denning, (23 January 1899 – 5 March 1999) was an English lawyer and judge.

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Tom Denning, Baron Denning · Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co and Tom Denning, Baron Denning · See more »

The list above answers the following questions

What Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co have in common
What are the similarities between Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co Comparison

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd has 15 relations, while Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co has 17. As they have in common 2, the Jaccard index is 6.25% = 2 / (15 + 17).

References

This article shows the relationship between Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. To access each article from which the information was extracted, please visit:

Unionpedia is a concept map or semantic network organized like an encyclopedia – dictionary. It gives a brief definition of each concept and its relationships.

This is a giant online mental map that serves as a basis for concept diagrams. It's free to use and each article or document can be downloaded. It's a tool, resource or reference for study, research, education, learning or teaching, that can be used by teachers, educators, pupils or students; for the academic world: for school, primary, secondary, high school, middle, technical degree, college, university, undergraduate, master's or doctoral degrees; for papers, reports, projects, ideas, documentation, surveys, summaries, or thesis. Here is the definition, explanation, description, or the meaning of each significant on which you need information, and a list of their associated concepts as a glossary. Available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Russian, Arabic, Hindi, Swedish, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Catalan, Czech, Hebrew, Danish, Finnish, Indonesian, Norwegian, Romanian, Turkish, Vietnamese, Korean, Thai, Greek, Bulgarian, Croatian, Slovak, Lithuanian, Filipino, Latvian, Estonian and Slovenian. More languages soon.

All the information was extracted from Wikipedia, and it's available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.

Unionpedia is not endorsed by or affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Google Play, Android and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.