In proprietary estoppel claims, once a promise is shown to be of such a nature as to form part of the inducement for the claimant's conduct, a presumption of reliance arises and the onus shifts to the promisor to establish that the claimant did not rely on the promise. Equivocal or inconclusive answers to hypothetical 'what if' questions in cross-examination are insufficient to rebut that presumption. The existence of preconditions to performance (such as subdivision approval or a co-owner's consent) does not of itself make reliance objectively unreasonable where the promisor has given assurances of control. Where a promisor repudiates promises in advance of the time for performance, unconscionability is assessed at the time of repudiation. Where transfer of the promised property is not possible due to third party interests, equitable compensation measured by the value of the expectation (not merely the quantum of detriment) is the appropriate remedy.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 29 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 29 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.