Synonyms for estoppel or Related words with estoppel

rescission              privity              counterclaim              appellant              litigant              settlor              voidable              interpleader              delict              indemnification              unenforceable              assumpsit              promisee              petitioner              mandamus              demurrer              testamentary              promisor              fideicommissum              restitutionary              litigate              complainant              appellants              hypothec              inadmissibility              trover              delictual              tort              testator              replevin              ajaxo              garnishee              fideicommissary              appellee              rebuttable              obiter              impugned              intestate              insolvency              executory              repudiation              intestacy              scienter              forfeiture              condonation              counterclaims              udrp              justiciability              pledgee              laches             



Examples of "estoppel"
"Estoppel in pais" (literally “by act of notoriety", or "solemn formal act”) is the historical root of common law estoppel by representation and equitable estoppel. The terms "Estoppel in pais" and equitable estoppel are used interchangeably in American law.
The term "proprietary estoppel" is not used in American law, but is part and parcel of the general doctrine of promissory estoppel. In English law, proprietary estoppel is distinct from promissory estoppel.
In English law, "proprietary estoppel" is distinct from promissory estoppel. "Proprietary estoppel" is not a concept in American law, but a similar result is often reached under the general doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Equitable estoppel is the American counterpart to estoppel by representation. Its elements are summarized as:
As noted above, under English law, promissory and proprietary estoppel are both species of equitable estoppel.
In the case of estoppel, a party (the estoppel raiser) who relies reasonably on a misrepresentation by the other party (the estoppel denier), and acts thereon to his own detriment, may hold the estoppel denier to his misrepresentation; that means, the estoppel raiser may prevent the estoppel denier from relying on the true state of affairs. A successful plea of estoppel has the effect that the misrepresented facts are upheld as if they were correct. A fictional contract, in other words, will be recognised.
In English law, estoppel by representation of fact is a term coined by Spencer Bower. This species of estoppel is also referred to as "common law estoppel by representation" in "Halsbury's Laws of England", vol 16(2), 2003 reissue.
Traditionally, collateral estoppel applied only where there was mutuality of parties, meaning that both the party seeking to employ collateral estoppel and the party against whom collateral estoppel is sought were parties to the prior action.
Estoppel by representation of fact is a term coined by Spencer Bower. This species of estoppel is also referred to as "common law estoppel by representation" in "Halsbury's Laws of England", vol 16(2), 2003 reissue.
Young applied for relief under promissory estoppel.
Estoppel is an equitable doctrine. Accordingly, any person wishing to assert an estoppel must normally come to the court with "clean hands".
In "The Law relating to Estoppel Representation", 4th edition, 2004 at para I.2.2, Spencer Bower defines estoppel by representation of fact as follows:
Estoppel by representation of fact and promissory estoppel are mutually exclusive: the former is based on representation of existing fact (or of mixed fact and law), while the latter is based on a promise not to enforce some pre-existing right (i.e., an intention as to the future). Proprietary estoppel can operate only between parties who, at the time of representation, were in a pre-existing relationship, while this is not a pre-requisite under estoppel by representation of fact.
This is an authority for estoppel by representation.
Spencer Bower defines estoppel by representation of fact as follows:
J. Fry summarized the five elements for proprietary estoppel as:
The law relating to contractual estoppel was summarised in :
Estoppel by representation of fact and promissory estoppel are mutually exclusive: the former is based on a representation of existing fact (or of mixed fact and law), while the latter is based on a promise not to enforce some pre-existing right (i.e. it expresses an intention as to the future). A promissory estoppel operates only between parties who, at the time of the representation, were in an existing relationship, while this is not a requirement for estoppel by representation of fact.
When enforcing an estoppel, Australian courts will look to the impact that enforcement will have on others, especially third parties. Relief in estoppel thus remains discretionary, and will not always be granted based on the expectation of the plaintiff.
Willmott v Barber, (1880) 15 Ch D 96, is an 1880 English case decided by Justice Edward Fry, The case is often cited for its holding regarding the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence or proprietary estoppel.