## Facts

- The Metropolitan Railway Company, as landlord, served Mr. Hughes, their tenant, a six-month notice to repair the leased premises, warning that failure to repair within this period could result in forfeiture of the lease.
- After the notice, the parties began negotiations for the landlord to potentially purchase Mr. Hughes’s lease.
- During these negotiations, Mr. Hughes halted the repairs, believing the requirement was suspended while discussions continued.
- Negotiations ultimately failed at the end of 1874, and the landlord sought a writ of ejectment, claiming Mr. Hughes had not completed the repairs within the original six-month timeframe.
- The case was brought to court to determine whether Mr. Hughes’s lease could be forfeited for failure to repair within the required period, given the prior negotiations.

## Issues

1. Whether the landlord could enforce forfeiture of the lease for failure to repair within the six months, considering the ongoing negotiations and conduct between the parties.
2. Whether promissory estoppel could prevent the landlord from enforcing strict contractual rights due to representations or implied promises made during negotiations.
3. Whether any suspension of obligations was temporary or permanent under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that Mr. Hughes was entitled to relief against forfeiture, rejecting the landlord’s claim.
- It was determined that the initial notice to repair was suspended during the negotiations, so the six-month period did not run during that time.
- The court found that it would be inequitable for the landlord to enforce forfeiture in light of their conduct and the representations made during negotiations.
- The original obligation to repair was not extinguished but merely suspended; the obligation revived once negotiations ended, giving Mr. Hughes a fresh period to complete repairs.
- The ruling established that where a party’s conduct leads another to believe strict rights will not be enforced, those rights cannot be enforced without giving reasonable notice after the suspension ends.

## Legal Principles

- Promissory estoppel prevents a party from enforcing contractual rights where it would be inequitable, due to prior conduct or clear representation relied upon by the other party.
- The primary effect of promissory estoppel is suspensory, temporarily halting enforcement of obligations rather than permanently extinguishing them.
- The principle requires clear communication or conduct indicating rights will not be enforced, and reliance by the other party.
- Later cases such as Collier v Wright and D & C Builders v Rees indicate courts may, in some payment cases, find promissory estoppel has an extinctive effect, though Hughes established only suspension.
- The equitable doctrine is applied to ensure fairness in the face of strict contract terms, especially where one party’s reliance would make enforcement unconscionable.

## Conclusion

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co established the suspensory effect of promissory estoppel in English contract law, holding that a party may not enforce strict legal rights where it would be unfair due to representations and reliance, with obligations generally paused rather than extinguished until changed circumstances end the estoppel.


Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] 2 App Cas 439