Was RBC estopped from accepting the August offer?
Crowley argued for such an estoppel on the basis that RBC had previously acknowledged it was “out of time” and the fact there had been a common assumption that the offer had lapsed, as evidenced by the fact that both parties had moved on to talk about significantly different figures. The Judge rejected this argument and held there was no estoppel. He stated that RBC’s acknowledgement was not relevant and that the evidence did not suggest a common assumption. Should the Court exercise its discretion to allow RBC to accept the offer? The Court declined to do so. The Court stated that the relevant test was that set out in Flynn v Scougall [2004] 1 WLR 3069 – namely “has there been a sufficient change in circumstances, such that it would be just to now refuse to allow a party to accept the offer?”. The Court held that in this case there had been a material change in circumstances, which would render it unjust to allow RBC to accept the offer. The basis for this was the fact that the amount
