판결 이유
Proprietary estoppel cannot arise from an agreement that is expressly 'subject to contract'. In commercial contexts, sophisticated parties who knowingly proceed without binding agreement cannot claim they relied on an assurance to their detriment.
사실관계
Cobbe, a property developer, spent time and money obtaining planning permission for land owned by Yeoman's Row on an oral understanding they would sell. The owner then renegotiated the price upward.
판결 요약
Lord Scott held that proprietary estoppel was not available. Cobbe knew there was no binding agreement and consciously took the commercial risk. He was awarded a quantum meruit for his services.
주요 인용문
"Proprietary estoppel cannot be the route to the acquisition of property rights which the parties intended to be the product of a formal contract."
— Lord Scott
후속 처리
Narrowed proprietary estoppel in commercial contexts; distinguished from domestic cases like Thorner v Major.