Waiver by estoppel: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
===Ingredients=== | ===Ingredients=== | ||
*A legal relationship between the “rightsholder” and the “beneficiary” giving rise to rights and obligations; | *A legal relationship between the “rightsholder” and the “beneficiary” giving rise to rights and obligations; | ||
*A clear [[representation]] by the rightsholder that it will not enforce its strict rights — it can be implied but it must be unequivocal<ref>Chitty muses that it needs to be as certain as would give it contractual effect if supported by consideration</ref> In any case the point here is to differentiate between someome representing that they will not enforce a contractual term — entitling a counterparty to rely on that representation — and simply granting an indulgence and not strictly enforcing a term, which will not give rise to a waiver. Let me say that again: '''simply not enforcing a term does not give rise to an [[estoppel]] or a [[waiver]]'''. | *A clear [[representation]] by the rightsholder that it will not enforce its strict rights — it can be implied but it must be unequivocal<ref>Chitty muses that it needs to be as certain as would give it contractual effect if supported by consideration</ref> In any case the point here is to differentiate between someome representing that they will not enforce a contractual term — entitling a counterparty to rely on that representation — and simply granting an indulgence and not strictly enforcing a term, which will not give rise to a waiver. Let me say that again: '''simply not enforcing a term does not give rise to an [[estoppel]] or a [[waiver]]'''. “It is difficult to imagine how silence and inaction can be anything but equivocal”<ref>{{casenote|Allied Marine Transport|Vale do Rio Doce Navegaçao SA (The Leonidas D.)}}</ref>. | ||
*The beneficiary must rely on the representation to its detriment, so as to make it inequitable for the rightsholder to go back on the representation. | *The beneficiary must rely on the representation to its detriment, so as to make it inequitable for the rightsholder to go back on the representation. | ||
*Unlike [[waiver by election]], generally [[waiver by estoppel]] is suspensory and not permanent — unless it would be inequitable to allow the waiver to be withdrawn. | *Unlike [[waiver by election]], generally [[waiver by estoppel]] is suspensory and not permanent — unless it would be inequitable to allow the waiver to be withdrawn. | ||
Revision as of 15:08, 18 March 2019
The other kind of waiver. The difficult one. Though not as perilous as your earnest counsel may have you believe.
Waiver by estoppel is when a party is entitled to exercise contractual rights, but by its conduct leads the other party to believe it will not so that party relies on that representation to its detriment. It is an outflowering of the great case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. Cas. 439
Ingredients
- A legal relationship between the “rightsholder” and the “beneficiary” giving rise to rights and obligations;
- A clear representation by the rightsholder that it will not enforce its strict rights — it can be implied but it must be unequivocal[1] In any case the point here is to differentiate between someome representing that they will not enforce a contractual term — entitling a counterparty to rely on that representation — and simply granting an indulgence and not strictly enforcing a term, which will not give rise to a waiver. Let me say that again: simply not enforcing a term does not give rise to an estoppel or a waiver. “It is difficult to imagine how silence and inaction can be anything but equivocal”[2].
- The beneficiary must rely on the representation to its detriment, so as to make it inequitable for the rightsholder to go back on the representation.
- Unlike waiver by election, generally waiver by estoppel is suspensory and not permanent — unless it would be inequitable to allow the waiver to be withdrawn.
See also
- Waiver | Waiver by election | Waiver by estoppel
- Course of dealing under the Uniform Commercial Code
- Estoppel
- No waiver boilerplate clause
References
- ↑ Chitty muses that it needs to be as certain as would give it contractual effect if supported by consideration
- ↑ Allied Marine Transport v Vale do Rio Doce Navegaçao SA (The Leonidas D.)