Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from making a claim that contradicts a previous statement or action. It aims to prevent injustice caused by inconsistencies. There are different forms of estoppel, such as promissory estoppel, property estoppel, and estoppel by acquiescence. In each case, a party’s reliance on a promise or representation made by another party can lead to the application of estoppel.
In law, the estoppel doctrine is a legal principle whereby an appellant may be prevented from asserting a legal claim or, depending on the set of facts, from supporting a claim if that appellant said or did something that contradicts its current claim. This doctrine attempts to avoid injustice or harm to one party due to the inconsistencies of another party. While there are several forms of estoppel, a doctrine of estoppel generally involves a promise or representation by one party that influences the behavior of the other party, which relies on the truthfulness of the promise or representation. For example, if a dog breeder agrees to give a customer a free dog, he can’t file a claim for the price of the dog six months later. The estoppel doctrine prevents him from asserting his otherwise legitimate right to payment for the dog because of the declaration he made to the customer that the dog would be free.
Promissory arrest refers to a situation where a promise made by one person leads to action by another party. If the promising person gives up, the second party suffers damage. For example, a hotel agrees to purchase 100 muffins from a small bakery, which as a result purchases additional supplies and adds an employee to complete the order. At the last minute, the hotel backs out of the deal. The promissary estoppel, if claimed by the bakery, will force the hotel to buy the muffins, because otherwise the bakery that relied on the hotel pledge will suffer damage.
Property arrest occurs when party A promises to give property to party B and party A knows that party B will spend money or take some other action that they otherwise would not. For example, a father-in-law promises that he will give his son-in-law a piece of lakefront property. Based on the promise, the son-in-law builds a house on the property, landscaping it, and builds a dock. Five years later the father-in-law changes his mind and decides to give the land to his son instead. In that case, the son-in-law can use a proprietary doctrine of estoppel to force the father-in-law to fulfill his original promise.
Estoppel can also exist due to a person not responding or responding to a legal notice. When a plaintiff asks a question, the defendant must respond to the complaint within a certain time limit. Failure to reply implies the defendant’s acquiescence in the claim, with consequent forfeiture of the right to lodge a counterclaim. For example, a depot owner sends a certified letter to a defaulting renter to remove their property from the facility or the landlord will take possession. If the lessee fails to respond, the owner may legitimately take possession of the contents of the storage bay, as failure to respond constitutes a doctrine of foreclosure by acquiescence.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
