Template:Waiver chains: Difference between revisions

The [[estoppel]] is specific to the particular circumstance. If you have a recurring right (you know, like to make a [[margin call]]), then just because you waived it once — even if you somehow permanently waived it — that doesn’t mean you have waived it for all time. Just because you didn’t enforce this time, that doesn’t mean you are prevented from ever enforcing in the future. This is at least implicit in the following passage from the leading modern case on waiver, {{casenote|Kosmar Villa Holidays plc|Trustees of Syndicate 1243}}:

It may be a real fear, but we are not persuaded it would bear real fruit. It makes little sense. After all, on the English law theory of the game,<ref>[[Course of dealing]]s caveats aside, for our American friends.</ref> a waiver is an impermanent, for the time being, sort of thing. You can stop a single waiver, as long as you give your counterparty time to get back on her horse and fashion enough of a run-up so she can approach the fence at a reasonable clip.  

So, even if one waiver ''could'' spark another one — and who knows, there could be events so closely related you trigger them all at once, we suppose — they can be doused easily enough later on. But really, your better bet is not to make contractual relations with the sort of person who would take that kind of point.  Our home-baked latin maxim refers: ''[[non sis arsholeus nec mercatum cum arsholibus facias]]''.<ref>Don’t ''be'' a jerk, and don’t do business with one either.</ref>