Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr [1979] QB 467 FACTS: The landlords of certain flats offered leases to sitting tenants. By these leases, the landlords undertook to maintain the structure of the blocks and the tenants undertook to contribute to the cost. Before the leases were executed, the landlords stated orally to the tenants' association and to some individual tenants that they would repair the roofs at their own expense. At this time, the roofs were in need of repair. The landlords carried out the repairs and claimed payment according to the terms of the leases. The first defendant was an original lessee who admitted that she would have taken the lease regardless of the landlords' statement. The second and third defendants were assignees from original lessees. HELD by the Court of Appeal: the claim against the first defendant failed because the principle of promissory estoppel applied to all cases where a party to whom a representation or promise had been made had in fact relied on it, e.g. by going ahead with a transaction under discussion, and that the claim against the second and third defendants failed because the estoppel raised against the landlords was an equity intended to be for the benefit of those from time to time holding the leases (Lord Denning). Per Roskill and Cumming-Bruce LJJ (with whom, however, Lord Denning also concurred), the claim against all three defendants failed because the landlords had waived their right to claim the cost of repairs from the tenants and their assignees. In the case of the first defendant, there was a collateral contract since she had given consideration for the landlords' promise by entering the lease in reliance on that promise.