Equitable estoppel california

Can promissory estoppel be enforced? What are the different types of estoppel? Doctrines like this one can provide important protections for your legal rights, but you must know that this type of legal protection exists in order for it to benefit you or your company. 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.

What follows are the three main types of estoppel that can be exercised in a court of law.

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.

This doctrine is applied where a party (P1) does some conduct which causes another party (P2) to rely upon and change his position, so Pwill be stopped from changing his postion. You should consult your own attorney to protect your legal rights. The equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to prevent a party from taking a position contrary to one the party advanced in prior litigation. The purpose of the doctrine has been stated in multiple, but substantially similar, forms: to protect the integrity of the judicial process, IJackson v. City of Los Angeles, No. In the Schafer case, a property owner operated its property in Los Angeles as a parking lot for over fifty years.

May an Administrative Law Judge apply equitable estoppel in a food stamp case? Based on a recent Court of Appeal decision, an Administrative Law Judge may not apply equitable estoppel in a food stamp case. The rationale behind estoppel is to prevent injustice owing to inconsistency or Fraud. There are two general types of estoppel : equitable and legal. The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not cure timeliness issue.

Equitable Estoppel equitable. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this principle — known as “ equitable estoppel ” — may also be applied to international contracts governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the New York Convention, because nothing in that Convention conflicts with. Forgent Networks, Inc.

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. Both plaintiffs and defendants may use equitable estoppel to block claims and defenses. While equitable estoppel falls within the family of “ equitable defenses,” it is an affirmative defense or an affirmative avoidance in response to an affirmative defense.

Estoppel has, however, been applied against the state or a governmental body in some exceptional cases or in situations where justice and right required it. County of Placer, supra, pp. California Water etc.