Tool Metal Manufacturing Company Ltd v Tungsten Electric Company Ltd

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeViscount Simonds,Lord Oaksey,Lord Tucker,Lord Cohen
Judgment Date16 June 1955
Judgment citation (vLex)[1955] UKHL J0616-1
CourtHouse of Lords
Docket NumberParliamentary Archives, HL/PO/JU/4/3/1034
Date16 June 1955
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
84 cases
2 firm's commentaries
  • Complex Commercial Litigation Law Review – England and Wales
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 27 January 2021
    ...Although two Supreme Court decisions in 201721 suggest that all of these 18 Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v. Tungsten Electric Co [1955] 1 WLR 761.19 Arnold v. Britton [2015] UKSC 36.20 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28, Chartbrook Ltd v. Persi......
  • Complex Commercial Litigation Law Review - Fifth Edition - England & Wales
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 19 December 2022
    ...Although two Supreme Court decisions in 201721 suggest that all of these 18 Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v. Tungsten Electric Co [1955] 1 WLR 761.19 Arnold v. Britton [2015] UKSC 36.20 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28, Chartbrook Ltd v. Persi......
4 books & journal articles
  • Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Contracts. Third Edition Enforceability
    • 4 August 2020
    ...premises, it would be necessary for the promisee to initiate a claim. 44 Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd , [1955] 1 WLR 761 (HL). THE L AW OF CONTR ACTS 316 which the lapse notice would be effective, the insurer assuming that it was effective as of its own date. 4......
  • DEMYSTIFYING THE RIGHT OF ELECTION IN CONTRACT LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...elects, instead of rescinds, to keep the contract alive and claim damages. 136 Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ld v Tungsten Electric Co Ld [1955] 1 WLR 761 at 764; The Uhenbels[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 294 at 298; The Happy Day, supra n 18,; in The Kanchenjunga, supra n 2, at 399, Lord Goff stresse......
  • Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Contracts. Second Edition Enforceability
    • 29 August 2012
    ...it would be necessary for the promisee to initiate a claim. 43 Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd. , [1955] 1 W.L.R. 761 (H.L.). 44 Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. v. Maritime Life Assurance Co. (1992), 127 A.R. 43 (C.A.), rev’d [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490. Though the ......
  • Contract as Promise: The Role of Promising in the Law of Contract. An Historical Account
    • United Kingdom
    • Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh Law Review No. , January 2013
    • 1 January 2013
    ...Even when used as a defence rights are only suspended and not extinguished.181 181Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd [1955] 1 WLR 761. As such promissory estoppel is only a partial answer to Foakes v Beer. Collier v Wright [2008] 1 WLR 643 challenges this orthodoxy: see ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT