Template:Estoppel quote Kosmar: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Estoppel]], however, is a [[promise]], supported not by [[consideration]] but by [[reliance]]. It is a promise not to rely upon a defence (per Lord Diplock) or a right (per Lord Goff)<ref>{{cite|Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA|Shipping Corporation of India (“The Kanchenjunga”)|1990|1 Lloyd’s Rep|391}}</ref>. It requires a [[representation]], in words or conduct, which must be unequivocal and must have been relied upon in circumstances where it would be inequitable for the promise to be withdrawn. The need for such unfairness probably means that the reliance of the representee has to constitute a detriment, but even the detriment has, I would think, to be such as to make it inequitable for the promise to be withdrawn. For these reasons, the estoppel may not be irrevocable, but may be suspensory only. An unequivocal representation without the necessary reliance, and reliance without the necessary unequivocal representation, are each insufficient. | [[Estoppel]], however, is a [[promise]], supported not by [[consideration]] but by [[reliance]]. It is a promise not to rely upon a defence (per Lord Diplock)<ref>{{Cite|Kammins Ballrooms Co Ltd|Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd|1971|AC|850}}</ref> or a right (per Lord Goff)<ref>{{cite|Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA|Shipping Corporation of India (“The Kanchenjunga”)|1990|1 Lloyd’s Rep|391}}</ref>. It requires a [[representation]], in words or conduct, which must be unequivocal and must have been relied upon in circumstances where it would be inequitable for the promise to be withdrawn. The need for such unfairness probably means that the reliance of the representee has to constitute a detriment, but even the detriment has, I would think, to be such as to make it inequitable for the promise to be withdrawn. For these reasons, the estoppel may not be irrevocable, but may be suspensory only. An unequivocal representation without the necessary reliance, and reliance without the necessary unequivocal representation, are each insufficient. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:00, 8 February 2023
Estoppel, however, is a promise, supported not by consideration but by reliance. It is a promise not to rely upon a defence (per Lord Diplock)[1] or a right (per Lord Goff)[2]. It requires a representation, in words or conduct, which must be unequivocal and must have been relied upon in circumstances where it would be inequitable for the promise to be withdrawn. The need for such unfairness probably means that the reliance of the representee has to constitute a detriment, but even the detriment has, I would think, to be such as to make it inequitable for the promise to be withdrawn. For these reasons, the estoppel may not be irrevocable, but may be suspensory only. An unequivocal representation without the necessary reliance, and reliance without the necessary unequivocal representation, are each insufficient.
- ↑ Kammins Ballrooms Co Ltd v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd [1971] AC 850
- ↑ Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corporation of India (“The Kanchenjunga”) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391