Equitable estoppel notes

Equitable estoppel is a legal principle that stops someone from taking a legal action that conflicts with his previous claims or behaviors. Essentially, equitable estoppel is a method of preventing someone from going back on his word in a court of law. For example, equitable estoppel would be granted to a defendant if the plaintiff previously gave his permission for the defendant to do something, and then sued the defendant once he did. To explore this concept, consider the following equitable estoppel definition.

See full list on legaldictionary. Estoppel is a term that is notoriously difficult to define in legal terminology. In its simplest form, estoppel translates to mean stopped in French, as in someone is being stopped from doing or saying something. Because the term is so vague, it has been attached to numerous areas of law. The purpose of estoppel is to hopefully prevent the wasting of court resources by stopping people from abusing the legal system by filing frivolous lawsuits.

However, estoppel can also be considered controversial. Because estoppel is a broad term that can be defined in many ways, these are arguably the three most important types of estoppel to consider. Jessica takes her car to the mechanic to have some work done. During the process, the mechanic accidentally slips with one of his tools and puts a small dent in Jessicas car.

He brings Jessicas attention to the dent and offers to fix it, but she says that its only cosmetic and not to worry about it. Promissory estoppel deals with contract law. In a case concerning promissory estoppel , one person cannot promise the other party to a contract that part or all of the contract will not be enforce only to later try to enforce that provision anyway. For instance, if an employer tells an employee that mandatory overtime will not be enforce despite being part of the employees contract, the employer cannot then attempt to enforce it later. The employee is not then obligated to abide by that part of the contract, and promissory estoppel would be granted in his favor.

It is important to note the distinctions between collateral estoppel and appeals. Collateral estoppel does not prevent someone from filing an appeal to have a different court reconsider the issues at hand. Instea collateral estoppel stops someone from bringing a frivolous lawsuit by trying to get in through the back door what he couldnt get in through the front. Betsy transfers the title of a plot of land to her daughter by deed.

Betsy acquires the title to the property after the transfer. An example of equitable estoppel can be found in the case of Aspex Eyewear Inc. Clariti violated Aspexs patents by selling AirMag, a particular brand of eyeglass frames. Once Aspex became aware of this product, Aspex sent Clariti two letters (one for each patent) asking that they cease and desist selling the product immediately. On appeal, the Court found that Aspex was misleading when convincing Clariti that Aspex did not intend to enforce the 7patent against Clariti.

Further, the Court found that Clariti relied on Aspexs misleading conduct to expand its business, doing so after not hearing anything else from Aspex after the initial incident. In other words, Aspex should have followed up after receiving Claritis response letter. Clariti responded to the letters, noting that they had never intended to infringe upon Aspexs patents. Clariti requested information from Aspex to review and responded back to Aspex that it did not believe Claritis products infringed upon Aspexs patents.

After this incident, Clariti did not hear anything from Aspex for over three years. At this point, Aspex sent Clariti another letter claiming that the AirMag product infringed upon one of the patents referred to three years prior. Clariti refused to stop selling the AirMag bran and so Aspex filed a civil lawsuit.

The district court dismissed one of the infringement claims, but left the other one active the 7patent. Clariti then moved to dismiss the remaining infringement suit, arguing that Aspex was barred by equitable estoppel , due to their remaining silent for three years on the subject. This is where equitable estoppel came in.

The evidence in the record suggested that, had Aspex filed suit against Clariti like they had originally threatene then in all likelihood Clariti would have discontinued their AirMag line and went on to other business ventures. This was enough proof for the Court that Clariti relied on Aspexs silence as permission to go forwar and that Aspex did not have a leg to stand on in that regard. View Notes - Equitable-Estoppel-Notes. It denotes a creation or encouragement by the defendant in the other party of an assumption that a contract will come into existence or a promise will be performed and for the other party to have relied upon that assumption to his or her detriment to the. The principle of estoppel is in place to protect a person against a loss suffered as a result from a relianceon a promise or representation.

The doctrine of Considerationfails to protect detrimental reliance. As long as there was no consideration, there was no contract, and thus a person who suffered from a reliance on a promise will not be able to receive remedies under contract law. Rather, he can seek remedies in estoppel.

Estoppel by conduct means “an inconsistent conduct by one party that causes or threatens to cause harm to another as a result of the second party’s reliance on that conduct. Representor– party making a representation which induces another party 1. He then makes arrangements (incurring expenditure) to transport and store those goods. A decision was made in Jordan v Moneythat a promise or representation as to future conduct could only be binding by way of contract – this meant that Estoppel was now limited only to reliance on existing fact and not future conduct. This decision was made to promote sanctity of bargains and ideals of self-reliance.

There is no universal agreement on the necessary elements to establish an estoppel. Detrimental reliance 1. The rights of the parties are determined as if the representation was true – by reference to the ‘assumed’ or ‘represented’ state of affairs. Common-Law Estoppel may be used both defensively and offensively: 1. There is a question as to whether estoppel can create independently enforceable rights or whether it can only be relied upon when it supports another cause of action, such as actions in contract or tort law. Previous cases - Equitable Estoppel has been accepted as a cause of action frequently by the courts already. Remedial flexibility - the discretion exercised by the court in granting relief entails that it is the estoppel itself to which the court is giving effect.

In Giumelli v Giumellithe court gave three reasons why Equitable Estoppel does not undermine the law of contract, even without a strict reliance-interest based approach: 1. Courts discretion means that consideration is not being undermined – breach of contract gives rise to compensatory damages, Equitable Estoppel merely gives rise to equity in favour of the Relying Party. In contract, obligation is derived from the promise of the Promisor. Estoppel doesn’t arise because of an unperformed promise, but the detrimental reliance. Thus, the courts see Estoppel as a form of obligation which operates alongside contract – distinguishable in the determination of questions of liability and remedy.

It is often pleaded as an alternative to contract. A third explanation is that estoppel is essentially concerned with protecting against harm. This view sees estoppel as analogous to tort. Other suggestions are that Estoppel provides is a deterrent against harm caused by detrimental reliance on promises.

The protection provided by Estoppels also encourages efficient reliance on promises. Thesethree theories (which underpin the principle of Estoppel ) point as to how Estoppel should operate: 1. Economic efficiency is also used by commentators as a guide with regards to how Estoppel should operate. Unconscionability: an essential element 1. One argument is that economic efficiency justifies only the enforcement of promises that further economic activity. Another opinion is that liability should be imposed on the party who is best placed to ensure that reliance occurs at the optimum time, in order to balance the benefits of early planning against the pitfalls of relying too early.

Can promissory estoppel be enforced? What is equitable estoppel mean? POMEROY’S EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, supra note § 8( equitable estoppel is intended to promote “equity and justice of the individual case by preventing a party from asserting his rights under a general technical rule of law, when he has so conducted himself that it would be contrary to equity and good conscience”).

A man may be stoppe not only from giving particular evidence but also depending upon that particular argument or contention that the rule of equity does not permit. The rationale behind estoppel is to prevent injustice owing to inconsistency or Fraud. Equitable Estoppel equitable.

There are two general types of estoppel : equitable and legal. As used in this note , the term estoppel means equitable estoppel against the government unless otherwise indicated. The Immigration and Nationality Act, U. Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) protections to otherwise ineligible employees.

In most cases, these courts have acknowledged equitable estoppel may be appropriate in the FMLA context. Equitable estates and interests - Highest form of equitable proprietary interest is beneficiary under a trust. Content of interest is right to compel trustee to hold and use his legal rights in accordance with terms of trust. If someone has an equitable interest in property, someone else must have the legal interest. The notice of claim statute is ‘subject to … estoppel and equitable tolling.

Cochise County, 2Ariz. Because both are equitable doctrines, the trial court acts as the fact-finder and determines if they.