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 Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The other kind of [[waiver]]. The ''difficult'' one. Though not as perilous as [[Mediocre lawyer|your earnest counsel]] may have you believe. | {{a|rep|{{image|Wafer|png|The ''other'' other kind of waiver. The biscuity one.}} }}The other kind of [[waiver]]. The ''difficult'' one. Though not half as perilous as [[Mediocre lawyer|your earnest counsel]] may have you believe. | ||
Waiver by estoppel | [[Waiver by estoppel]] may arise when a party who is entitled to exercise contractual rights, by its conduct ''leads the other party to believe it will not'', so that ''the other party relies on that representation'' to its detriment. It is an outflowering of the great case of {{citern|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway|1877|2 App. Cas.|439}}. | ||
===Ingredients=== | |||
For us to even be in the ballpark, you need: | |||
A '''relationship''': A legal relationship — maybe a [[contract]], maybe something statutory — between the “rightsholder” and the “beneficiary” creating the rights and obligations; | |||
A '''representation''': A clear [[representation]] by the rightsholder that it will not strictly enforce its rights — the representation need not be written or explicit, but it must be ''unequivocal''<ref>Chitty muses that it needs to be as certain as would have given it contractual effect had it been supported by [[consideration]].</ref> In any case, the point here is to differentiate between someone unambiguously giving the impression that they will not enforce a contractual term — entitling a counterparty to rely on that representation — and a rightsholder simply ''refraining from enforcing a term of the contract it was entitled to''. The latter will ''not'' give rise to a [[Waiver by estoppel|waiver]]. The representation must be some kind of positive act: simply not enforcing a term does ''not'' give rise to an [[estoppel]] or a [[waiver]]: | |||
{{quote|“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>}} | |||
'''Reliance''': The beneficiary must actually rely on the [[representation]] to its detriment ... | |||
'''Inequity''': ... so as to make it ''inequitable for the rightsholder to go back on the [[representation]]''. | |||
So: a ''[[contract]]'', some kind of ''[[representation]]'' and a ''reliance'' on it to the representee’s detriment. | |||
===Effect=== | |||
Unlike [[waiver by election]], generally a [[waiver by estoppel]] only suspends the rightsholder’s legal rights and does not permanently extinguish them — unless it would be inequitable to allow the waiver to be withdrawn. So (as per {{citern|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway|1877|2 App. Cas.|439}}, if your tenant is obliged to repair the property within six months of your notice and, having given notice, you then [[Representation|represent]] you won’t insist on it doing so while you negotiate the potential sale of the property to the tenant, when those negotiations inevitably fall through and you decide you ''do'' want your property repaired after all, you can’t insist on the tenant getting everything done in the remaining two weeks of the original notice period. Instead, the six month period is reset from when you give further notice of the repairs. | |||
Codified common sense, really. | |||
{{course of dealing vs waiver}} | |||
{{waiver chains}} | |||
{{waiver}} | {{waiver}} | ||
*[[Don’t take a piece of paper to a knife fight]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||