difficulty in getting the vehicles serviced, with the result that the owners agreed to instalments under the hire-purchase contract being withheld whenever the vehicles were not in active service. The owners later sought to revert to the original terms, requiring the defendants to pay all instalments due. The Privy Council held that the owners’ claim was not defeated by the doctrine of promissory estoppel as there was no proof that the lorries remained unavailable for use: EA Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1326, PC, p 1329

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-231

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

difficulty in getting the vehicles serviced, with the result that the owners agreed to instalments under the hire-purchase contract being withheld whenever the vehicles were not in active service. The owners later sought to revert to the original terms, requiring the defendants to pay all instalments due. The Privy Council held that the owners’ claim was not defeated by the doctrine of promissory estoppel as there was no proof that the lorries remained unavailable for use: EA Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1326, PC, p 1329

ABSTRACT

EA Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1326, PC, p 1329 Lord Hodson: The defendant’s final contention was that having altered his position in the manner indicated the owners never gave notice that the period of suspension was at an end before issuing their summons and that accordingly the lorries never having been returned or made available for service he was entitled to rely on the equitable defence as defined by Bowen LJ in the Birmingham and District Land Co case. Alternatively he went further and contended on the authority of the cases of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd and Combe v Combe that the promise given by the letter of 22 July was irrevocable, unless the lorries were made available for service and that, since this never happened, the owners cannot enforce their claim.