Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 KB 290

A father bought a house with a deposit and mortgage and allowed his son and daughter-in-law to live there. He promised that the house would become theirs if they paid off the mortgage. They began making the required payments without expressly promising to complete every instalment. After the father died, his widow sought possession, while the daughter-in-law continued the mortgage payments. The dispute concerned the status of the promise and the occupier's protection during performance. It required the court to distinguish a completed right to ownership from the contractual permission to remain while fulfilling the stipulated condition.

Could the father's promise and permission to occupy be revoked after mortgage payments began, while the stipulated performance continued following his death?

The Court of Appeal held that the promise could not be revoked so as to eject the occupiers while the stipulated mortgage payments continued. The father's arrangement was unilateral: the promised transfer would be earned by paying the mortgage, without an express promise by the couple binding them to complete those payments.

Their commencement of the requested performance nevertheless protected them against the offer being withdrawn in disregard of the arrangement. The right to remain was linked to continued performance and did not immediately give them unconditional ownership. The widow claiming through the father could not obtain possession contrary to that protection. The case should not be read as establishing that every contractual licence creates a proprietary interest binding all subsequent purchasers.

Commencing the requested performance of a unilateral promise may prevent the promisor revoking it while performance continues. The full promised benefit remains conditional on completion. A contractual right to occupy should not automatically be equated with ownership or a proprietary right enforceable against every third party.

Errington connects unilateral offers with an agreement permitting occupation of a home. It distinguishes protection during performance from entitlement to the promised transfer after completion. Daulia later discussed an implied obligation not to prevent completion of a unilateral bargain. The property aspect requires care: the case is not authority that all contractual licences run with land. Questions about successors, formalities and proprietary estoppel should be considered separately where the facts require them.