One of the arguments raised in Bruton was that the tenancy was founded on the notion of estoppel (tenancy by estoppel is discussed further at 7.16). In the words of Lord Hoffmann:
… it is not the estoppel which creates the tenancy, but the tenancy which creates the estoppel. The estoppel arises when one or other of the parties wants to deny the ordinary incidents or obligations of the tenancy on the ground that the landlord had no legal estate. The basis of the estoppel is that having entered into an agreement which constitutes a lease or tenancy, he cannot repudiate that incident or obligation.
Do you think that the estoppel principles should result in the party who has relied upon the representation acquiring a proprietary title greater than that held by the person who made the representation?
