In England the notable successes have been Wakeman v Mackenzie (1968) 1 WLR 1175 based upon part performance and Re Basham (1986) 1 WLR 149, Wayling v Jones (1995) 2 FLR 1029 and the unreported case of Walton v Walton (14 April 1994 CA) based upon estoppel. Four years later, they began living together "in a homosexual relationship", 15 in Aberystwyth. It was costing her too much money. The Court of Appeal found for the claimant. Ms Dowden had contributed significantly more to the purchase price and the parties had kept their finances completely separate throughout their relationship, despite the fact that they had four children together. But it has become overloaded with cases. The claimant sought damages. The plaintiff and the deceased, having met in 1967, lived together (for all bar one year) between 1971 and the death of the deceased in 1987. Generic promises that the individual will be looked after without reference to a piece of land will not suffice. Once the link had been established it was for J's estate to prove that W had not relied on the promise . Jones v Lock; Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust Housing Association Ltd v Attorney General (K) Kahrmann v Harrison-Morgan; Kayford Ltd, Re; Kearns Brothers Ltd v Hova Developments; Keech v Sandford; Keeling v Keeling; Keen, Re [1937] . : Skill, deskilling and the labour process (London: Hutchinson, 1982), 70. J promised W that he would leave property to him in his will if he helped in running his business. The courts must then satisfy this with some sort of remedy. Wayling v Jones. This hotel was later sold and a different hotel was bought. As such, the Court found sufficient certainty in what had been promised to D. The result of the Courts broad approach means that one must be careful when making comments that could be construed as a promise. I will do so by refining my propositions and reaction of this case, of the dispute of active and passive euthanasia. In rare cases, the individual might not be entitled to anything. Re Basham In the meantime: Be careful what you promise! houziwang. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. ACCEPT, any detriment suffered by the plaintiff in reliance on them." He decided it would be unconscionable to conclude that the son was wrong to expect to inherit. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. Therefore, the defendant had not discharged the burden of proof to show that there was in fact no reliance on the promise.