Jorden v Money [1854]
Share
Jorden v Money [1854] UKHL J50 is a contract law case concerning estoppel and intentional representations.
Jorden held a bond under which Money agreed to pay her a sum of money. Jorden, on multiple occasions, declared that she would not seek to enforce the bond due to her affection for Money. Relying on these declarations, Money's fiancee's family settled property on him as part of the marriage arrangements. However, after the marriage, Jorden initiated proceedings against Money to recover the money due. Money argued that she was estopped (at common law) from doing so.
In the House of Lords, Lord Denman articulated the principle:
"But the rule of law is clear that where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time."
The majority of the House of Lords held that Jorden was not estopped. The rule of estoppel concerns representations of fact. In this case, Jorden had only made a representation about her intention not to enforce the bond. Since intention is a matter of personal state of mind and not a representation of fact, the estoppel rule did not apply.
This case highlights the distinction between representations of fact and expressions of intention in estoppel cases. The decision clarified that estoppel, as a legal doctrine, primarily operates in situations where a party's conduct or words induce another party to believe a certain state of facts, and they act on that belief to their detriment. In cases involving representations of intention, the application of estoppel may be limited.
Jorden held a bond under which Money agreed to pay her a sum of money. Jorden, on multiple occasions, declared that she would not seek to enforce the bond due to her affection for Money. Relying on these declarations, Money's fiancee's family settled property on him as part of the marriage arrangements. However, after the marriage, Jorden initiated proceedings against Money to recover the money due. Money argued that she was estopped (at common law) from doing so.
In the House of Lords, Lord Denman articulated the principle:
"But the rule of law is clear that where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time."
The majority of the House of Lords held that Jorden was not estopped. The rule of estoppel concerns representations of fact. In this case, Jorden had only made a representation about her intention not to enforce the bond. Since intention is a matter of personal state of mind and not a representation of fact, the estoppel rule did not apply.
This case highlights the distinction between representations of fact and expressions of intention in estoppel cases. The decision clarified that estoppel, as a legal doctrine, primarily operates in situations where a party's conduct or words induce another party to believe a certain state of facts, and they act on that belief to their detriment. In cases involving representations of intention, the application of estoppel may be limited.
