- Published on
Legal Terms – Estoppel
[From Norman French estouper, to stop up] estoppel n. a rule of law or evidence that forbids someone from contesting the veracity of a claim they have made or the existence of facts they have claimed to exist. The individual who wants to use estoppel must have acted upon the denial (likely to his detriment) or his status must have changed as a result. Estoppel comes in a number of forms. • When the party estopped makes a declaration or gives the other party reason to believe in a certain truth, estoppel by behavior (also known as in pais) occurs. • A person who has performed a deed is prohibited from claiming that the facts contained in the deed are false by estoppel by deed. • A person is prohibited from revisiting questions that are *res judicata, or that have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, by estoppel by record, also known as per rem judicatam.
Also see issue estoppel. Promissory and proprietary estoppel are the two types of equitable estoppel. When one party to a contract promises the other (by words or deeds) that he will not exercise his rights under the contract in whole or in part, the doctrine of promissory estoppel comes into play. Even if the promise is made without deliberation, it will still bind the person making it: he won't be able to sue later on the contract if the other party has acted in reliance on it. Thus, the theory alters the common-law principles of *accord and satisfaction where appropriate. A claimant who has acted negatively as a result of a promise or representation made to him by the property owner may be granted a discretionary remedy by the courts under the theory of proprietary estoppel. According to Crabb v. Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179, the remedy granted is "the minimum equity to do justice" and ought to be commensurate with the harm suffered (Jennings v. Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159, [2003] 1 FCR 501; Ottey v. Grundy [2003] EWCA Civ 1176 [2003], WTLR 1253). The remedy could be monetary compensation (Baker v. Baker (1993) 25 HLR 408 (CA)), a life interest (Greasley v. Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306 (CA)), or the full fee simple in a property (Pascoe v. Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431 (CA)).
[From Norman French estouper, to stop up] estoppel n. a rule of law or evidence that forbids someone from contesting the veracity of a claim they have made or the existence of facts they have claimed to exist. The individual who wants to use estoppel must have acted upon the denial (likely to his detriment) or his status must have changed as a result. Estoppel comes in a number of forms. • When the party estopped makes a declaration or gives the other party reason to believe in a certain truth, estoppel by behavior (also known as in pais) occurs. • A person who has performed a deed is prohibited from claiming that the facts contained in the deed are false by estoppel by deed. • A person is prohibited from revisiting questions that are *res judicata, or that have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, by estoppel by record, also known as per rem judicatam.
Also see issue estoppel. Promissory and proprietary estoppel are the two types of equitable estoppel. When one party to a contract promises the other (by words or deeds) that he will not exercise his rights under the contract in whole or in part, the doctrine of promissory estoppel comes into play. Even if the promise is made without deliberation, it will still bind the person making it: he won't be able to sue later on the contract if the other party has acted in reliance on it. Thus, the theory alters the common-law principles of *accord and satisfaction where appropriate. A claimant who has acted negatively as a result of a promise or representation made to him by the property owner may be granted a discretionary remedy by the courts under the theory of proprietary estoppel. According to Crabb v. Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179, the remedy granted is "the minimum equity to do justice" and ought to be commensurate with the harm suffered (Jennings v. Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159, [2003] 1 FCR 501; Ottey v. Grundy [2003] EWCA Civ 1176 [2003], WTLR 1253). The remedy could be monetary compensation (Baker v. Baker (1993) 25 HLR 408 (CA)), a life interest (Greasley v. Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306 (CA)), or the full fee simple in a property (Pascoe v. Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431 (CA)).
0 Comments