Personal and proprietary tenancies

Examines the Chancery Division ruling in London Development Agency v Nidai on whether a number of agreements providing for the construction of a bridge and shop premises on the retaining walls of a river resulted in a binding legal lease or a series of bare licences. Comments on the failure of the judgment to mention the House of Lords ruling in Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust and discusses whether a Bruton tenancy is capable of binding third parties.

Characterization of chitin–metal silicates as binding superdisintegrants

When chitin is used in pharmaceutical formulations, processing of chitin with metal silicates is advantageous, from both an industrial and pharmaceutical perspective, compared to processing using silicon dioxide. Unlike the use of acidic and basic reagents for the industrial preparation of chitin-silica particles, coprecipitation of metal silicates is dependent upon a simple replacement reaction between sodium silicate and metal chlorides. When coprecipitated onto chitin particles, aluminum, magnesium, or calcium silicates result in nonhygroscopic, highly compactable/disintegrable compacts. Disintegration and hardness parameters for coprocessed chitin compacts were investigated and found to be independent of the particle size. Capillary action appears to be the major contributor to both water uptake and the driving force for disintegration of compacts. The good compaction and compression properties shown by the chitin-metal silicates were found to be strongly dependent upon the type of metal silicate coprecipitated onto chitin. In addition, the inherent binding and disintegration abilities of chitin-metal silicates are useful in pharmaceutical applications when poorly compressible and/or highly nonpolar drugs need to be formulated. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 98:4887-4901, 2009.

Estoppe right there

Examines the House of Lords judgment in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd on whether an experienced property developer was entitled to relief on the basis of proprietary estoppel for the cost of obtaining planning permission to demolish an existing property and build new houses under a non-binding oral agreement. Sets out two requisite conditions needed when deciding whether estoppel existed. Considers whether unconscionability was a separate element in making a claim for proprietary estoppel. [From Legal Journals Index]