LAW 1503 Lecture 8: Estoppel
23 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
ESTOPPEL
Nature and Types of estoppel
As an alternative to contract
• Plead to preclude ('estop') one party from denying the truth of, or acting
inconsistently with, an assumption which the other has been encouraged to adopt
o Stops a party from pleading a legal argument or commencing legal
proceedings that they would have otherwise done
• Can be used to enforce promises that might otherwise be unenforceable (eg. Due
to lack of consideration)
• But granted at court's discretion
Equitable Estoppel
Distinguish
Common law
• Limited to assumptions or
representations as to present fact
(a beef that a contract HAS been
signed)
Jorden v Money (1854) 10 ER 868
• Estoppel by convention (parties
agreed to conduct relations in a
particular way); estoppel by
representation (one party leads
another to believe something
untrue)
Equity
• Estoppel can be
founded on
representations as to
the future (a belief
that a contract WILL
be signed) (promise)
Riches v Hogben
[1986] 1 Qd R 315
• Proprietary (regards
real property-
estoppel by
encouragement;
estoppel by
acquiescence)
(Riches v Hogben-
used to enforce
gratuitous promises to
grant an interest in
land)
• Promissory (A leads
B to believe that A will
fulfil a promise)
• Ashton v Pratt drew a
sharp distinction
between the two. No
unified doctrine.
Equitable estoppel
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Equity: limited to assumptions or, estoppel can be representations as to present fact (a beef that a contract has been signed) Proprietary (regards real property- estoppel by encouragement; estoppel by acquiescence) (riches v hogben- used to enforce gratuitous promises to grant an interest in land: promissory (a leads. B to believe that a will fulfil a promise: ashton v pratt drew a sharp distinction between the two. Estoppel as a sword: creates legal rights that, blocks party from pleading a legal argument the would have otherwise, representations that a party would not enforce existing rights je maintiendrai pty ltd v quaglia (1980) 26 sasr. 101; would not have otherwise existed (damages in contract when no contract existed without estoppel) Ltd v maher: an assumption that a contract will come into existence, or a promise be performed, or an interest granted to the plaintiff by the defendant austotel pty. No "presumption of reliance," party raising estoppel must always prove detrimental reliance.
