82,882
edits
Waiver by estoppel: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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 par...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Waiver by estoppel is when a party is entitled to exercise close-out rights, but by conduct leads the offending party to believe it will not. It is an outflowering of the great case of {{citern|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway|1877|2 App. Cas.|439}} | Waiver by estoppel is when a party is entitled to exercise close-out rights, but by conduct leads the offending party to believe it will not. It is an outflowering of the great case of {{citern|Hughes|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<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]]'''. | |||
*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[[waiver by estoppel]] is suspensory and not permanent — unless it would be inequitable to allow the waiver to be withdrawn. | |||
{{waiver}} | {{waiver}} | ||