▁have ▁in cur red ▁exp end iture ▁or ▁otherwise ▁have ▁pre jud iced ▁himself .” ▁But ▁I ▁do ▁not ▁think ▁that ▁that ▁is ▁necessary . ▁It ▁is ▁sufficient ▁if ▁the ▁party , ▁to ▁whom ▁the ▁ass urance ▁is ▁given , ▁acts ▁on ▁the ▁faith ▁of ▁it ▁— ▁in ▁such ▁circumstances ▁that ▁it ▁would ▁be ▁un just ▁and ▁in equ itable ▁for ▁the ▁party ▁making ▁the ▁ass urance ▁to ▁go ▁back ▁on ▁it : ▁see ▁Mo org ate ▁Mer c ant ile ▁Co . ▁Ltd . ▁v . ▁Tw itch ings ▁[ 1 9 7 6 ] ▁Q . B . ▁ 2 2 5 ▁and ▁' C ra bb ▁v ▁Ar un ▁District ▁Council ▁[ 1 9 7 6 ] ▁Ch . ▁ 1 7 9 ▁, ▁ 1 8 8 . ▁App lying ▁those ▁principles ▁here ▁it ▁can ▁be ▁seen ▁that ▁the ▁ass ur ances ▁given ▁by ▁Kenneth ▁and ▁Hed ley ▁to ▁Dor is ▁Co oke ▁— ▁leading ▁her ▁to ▁believe ▁that ▁she ▁would ▁be ▁allowed ▁to ▁stay ▁in ▁the ▁house ▁as ▁long ▁as ▁she ▁wished ▁— ▁raised ▁an ▁equ ity ▁in ▁her ▁favour . ▁There ▁was ▁no ▁need ▁for ▁her ▁to ▁prove ▁that ▁she ▁acted ▁on ▁the ▁faith ▁of ▁those ▁ass ur ances . ▁It ▁is ▁to ▁be ▁pres umed ▁that ▁she ▁did ▁so . ▁There ▁is ▁no ▁need ▁for ▁her ▁to ▁prove ▁that ▁she ▁acted ▁to ▁her ▁det r iment ▁or ▁to ▁her ▁pre jud ice . ▁Su ff ice ▁it ▁that ▁she ▁stayed ▁on ▁the ▁house ▁— ▁looking ▁after