Talk:Estoppel

Discussion

I changed the introduction. I think it was not accurate before. I'm still not sure it is 100% but I think it is closer. This page needs a bit of work to be a respectable encyclopaedic article, mainly the intro. Go team! Therin83 12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a poorly-written, fragmented, single run-on sentence. It does not provide a clear definition.

Does this page refer only to English law? Does the US law include the concept of Estoppel?

Maybe false advertising? I'm not sure, but then again I'm not a lawyer. Evil saltine 13:53, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re example of purchase of radio: Don't know US law but (assuming it is similar to English law) would have thought that the since there was no discussion of price the vendor is entitled to change the price. He made no promise re price. He only stated that he would deal with you like any other customer, who would have to pay $11? Also, the promise to deal with you as a customer could not reasonably be expected to induce you to return - many customers do not.?? Questionable example?? 82.35.65.1

Yes, estoppel is present in U.S. law.

The example is not that flawed, except that it is also an example of other issues which makes it cloudy, a better example would be nice, I think best would be ACTUAL case citations, (and a well written synopsis) to replace the examples given.

This article needs a mention of estoppel by acquiescence Pedant 04:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are few, if any, topics of the law or relationships of which the law takes cognizance which are not affected to a greater or lesser degree by the principles of estoppel. When an estoppel binds a party to litigation he is prevented from placing reliance on or denying the existence of certain facts. From the point of view of the party in whose favour they operate, estoppels render the proof of certain fact unnecessary, and from the point of view of the party against whom they operates, estoppels have the effect of an absolute exclusionary rule. Also it is possible to argue that estoppel is better regarded as a matter of pleading or substantive law, rather than a rule of evidence. Estoppels are of three kinds; estoppel by judgment (or record), estoppel by deed and estoppel by matter in pais (or by conduct). This article discusses the basic principles of estoppel with only such specific application thereof as appears to be essential to an effective presentation of the subject.|شهرام آکویی محصل|قاعده استاپا و مقایسه آن با انکار پس از اقرار|سالنامه تحقیقات ببن المللی حقوق||1399 شهرام آکویی محصل (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Issue estoppel

What is it? - Issue estoppel (aka collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, estoppel per rem judicatam) is a defence that bars a party from litigating a specific issue that has been decided in a prior separate action. -

Stop program ChristyleeGarris1984 01:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christysgotit (talk • contribs)

"English and Welsh law"

There's no such concept. "English law" rules over "England and Wales" (and I write that as a fervent Welsh nationalist). I've amended the article appropriately — OwenBlacker 19:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Law

Canadian Law includes the concept of Estoppel. "An estoppel is a doctrine of law which precludes a person from denying the truth of a statement formerly made by him or her or the existence of a series of facts which has caused someone to draw certain logical conclusions." In simpler terms, "An estoppel arises when a person is forbidden by law to speak against their own act or deed. A man's own act or acceptance stops or closes his mouth to prevent him from arguing the opposite."Rcmpsc (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Criminal law/American law subsection

This short paragraph relies exclusively on a single source, citing it somewhat redundantly four times. My (admittedly non-professional) reading of the relevant paragraph in the case cited suggests that the description here garbles and misrepresents the case law on this topic. Since there is a good bit more case law on this, a competent lawyer with more familiarity with the issue or able to review some of the other relevant cases should re-write this section.ScottForschler (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Gah!

Woul not it be simplest to include a definition of what Estoppel is garnered from Halsburys? I appreciate that such a definition might be esoteric and aracane to the lay person, so clearly a disection of said definition by way of explaining what it really means in simpler language is in order.

Sorry

I found the language of the article particularly unhelpful for a lay reader so I have substantially rewritten it in the hope of making the concepts a little more accessible — a task that is actually a serious challenge at this length. I sincerely apologise to the original author for hacking it about to such an extent. But I claim no magic pen so this merely passes on the baton to the next mug prepared to invest the time to produce the bestest version possible. - David91

I found this page very useful. - sena30

Pronunciation

Could a native English speaker add a phonetic transcription and a sound sample? I believe the pronunciation of this word is a bit odd. Karl Stas 15:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Just how it looks: 'eh' - 'stop' (and then an 'l' sound with hardly any vowel in between, like at the end of 'people') Therin83 12:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not obvious for a non-native speaker. I always though the stress would have been on the -el. – gpvos (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Estoppel vs. ESTOP

When I was searching for ESTOP (a common abbreviation for Emergency stop), Wikipedia automatically redirected me to "estoppel". Perhaps a new disambiguation page called "ESTOP" should be made, with links to both "Estoppel" and "Emergency Stop".

Done. – gpvos (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Estoppel (English law) is nearly identical to this article. Probably one has been split off from the other, and both versions have diverged. This is not useful; someone should merge them back, and list only the peculiarities of estoppel under English law as a section or maybe a separate article. – gpvos (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree

Nothing is gained by having a separate English Law version of this article. Dratman (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One more vote from an attorney for merging these two estoppel entries. 216.119.179.18 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

One more vote Lasagne Meow (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Not Sure this is entirely wise

Merging the two articles, which governs a legal rule applicable to different jurisdictions could create confusion in numerous situations and is not the right course of action. Indeed the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel is NOT the same as the operation of the doctrine in the US. For starters one cannot utilise the doctrine as a basis for an action in England. (See Combe v Combe.) 82.19.25.173 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Res Judicata

I believe that (in American Law at least) Res Judicata is separate from Issue Estoppel. Issue Estoppel (issue preclusion) prevents a party from re-litigating an issue (even against a different party). Res Judicata (claim preclusion) prevents the same parties from re-litigating a claim. The requirements for each are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:216.146.79.58 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 June 2007

Definitely different issues. Res judicata and the rule in Henderson v Henderson represent a very distinct sub-species of estoppel, and they are partly driven by estoppel and partly driven by rules of public policy. Definitely should be treated separately for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up and removed reference to Double Jeopardy as well.

Not sufficiently confident to edit (not a lawyer) but...

"The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation... ...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false."

If estoppel is shield and not sword, shouldn't the plaintiff have induced the expectation on which the defendant has relied? Durobrivan 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The old language of shields and swords isn't that helpful I think. Most varieties of estoppel (barring proprietary estoppel) are described as "shields", in that they are plead in answer to a cause of action. The shield and sword distinction is illusory in practice, because on a given set of facts you can construct the cause of action so that you can plead the "shield" in reply. In the example above for example, if the actual cause of action was breach of contract, the plaintiff will plead breach of contract, the defendant will plead a denial of some sort, and the estoppel will be plead in reply to negate his/her denial. --Cliau (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In American law, Section 90 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts is based on the established doctrine of promissory estoppel:

Section 90. Promise Reasonably Inducing Action of Forbearance 1)A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action of forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action of forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice so requires. -signed, a law student

Estoppel in Partnerships???

Does anyone know how a business partnership is created by/through an estoppel?? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evryedge (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we add some kind of a reference to the text: "Although some authorities regard reliance-based estoppels as mere rules of evidence, they are in reality rules of substantive law."? As it stands, the reader has no basis for reliance on the preceding sentence. A good source might include a law textbook, which makes exactly the same assertion. Other questions this raises are: what is the position of these other (unknown number) of authorities, who disagree with said classification? If they have no reason to regard it as such, might the article be better served by cutting that out, or an explanation? Thanks. --Yevuard (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the issue is confused by the history of estoppel. Previous to the fusion of common law and equity, there was separate development of estoppel by representation in equity and in common law. Starting with a series of decisions beginning in Jorden v Money (1854), estoppel by representation began to be confined to certain circumstances (probably to restrict its separate growth), namely it had to be a representation of present fact, not intention or law. Therefore in Franklin v Manufacturers Mutual Insurance (1936), Sir Frederick Jordan described this form of estoppel as a "rule of evidence". This I think is true, but does not describe all the other species of estoppel. --Cliau (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems backwords, something unclear

from the introduction:

In the same way, a landlord might inform a tenant that rent has been reduced, for example, if there was construction or a lapse in utility services. If the tenant relies on this notice, the landlord could be estopped from collecting the full rent.

however in this case the landload would attampting to get rent out of the tenent, and therefore the party that created the exectation would be the plaintiff and not the dependent, specifically holding that any expectations should be void because they were not in writing. THe parties are opposite what the definition defines at the top of the article, however this example seems very strong. Is the definition for the term wrong? Is this a uncommon example? (unlikely) Are their cases where it goes the other way that I cant think of? Is there something I am missing? Scientus (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the examples aren't very well explained for a lay reader, but the expectation referred to is the expectation that the landlord will not collect the balance of the rent, and that the tenant relied on this to their detriment. 121.44.175.94 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

First two paragraphs

I think the first two paragraphs should be removed, the third paragraph is a better starting point work with. Estoppel as a supplement to consideration is but a very small part of estoppel. The other major issue is that estoppel is a doctrine in equity, not common law, and most judges and commentators recognise this distinction despite the fusion. Kraikk (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion allegation

It is a nuisance that any amateur tries to qualify juridical or technical matters as easy to digest. It is not amust, that anyone may understand a matter in a lemma. Please qualify your comment before you put hands on editing.Wireless friend (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Poorly written

The section about promissory estoppel in American law is an incoherent disaster, but I don't have the time to fix it myself right now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Kinsella reference

A reference written by Kinsella was removed & the edit summary said: "deleting fringe political (anarchist) source from article concerning technical legal matter." 1. The link was broken, so it is hard to see how editing decision could be made based on material that was not accessed. 2. Kinsella is regularly published by OUP. 3. Fringe is a term that more directly applies to pseudoscience & wacko theories, anarchism is not fringe. 4. "technical legal matter" is a rather vague term. Kinsella has written practice books (which are technical legal sources in the sense that they provide "how-to" information for legal professionals. 5. In the law, especially, we do not censor simply because of personal views that disparage anarchists. 6. At best the material may not have been used as a reference for the text, but that is an issue for proper editing of the article text. – S. Rich (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

1) please provide a link for the view that Kinsella is "regularly published by OUP." 2) Please provide a link for the view that his libertarian works -- as opposed to his legal works -- are published by any mainstream source. 3) Please note that I Googled the link, and it relates to Argumentation Ethics, a fringe philosophy theory that has little to nothing to do with the law, and has been addressed by virtually no legal scholars. Steeletrap (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I've previously discussed with you the mis-insertion of "further reading" links which do not provide content related to the article subject. This appears to be another such unsuitable addition. It's not just anything with the word "estoppel" or anything that interests you. There needs to be expository or analytical content which relates to the subject. This link should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Stephan Kinsella#Books. 2) Libertarian works (mainstream, heterodox, or whatever) does not matter – estoppel is a legal subject. 3) What he has said about estoppel in this article needs examination. Etc.) He is listed as a "reference", but it is not clear what parts of the article his reference supports. In any case, your edit summary was off the mark. He is not fringe; you did not look at the reference before removing it; the subject is not one about anarchism or how anarchism impacts a "technical legal matter". Please remember that WP:BURDEN is on the editor who adds or removes material. You did not meet your burden. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. Why are you accusing me of lying by saying I did not read the reference? I did read it, and it builds off of Argumentation Ethics, and relates to (fringe) philosophy rather than to law. Also, the link to the books section supports my view, namely that he is not regularly published by OUP. Steeletrap (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich. To insert this particular Kinsella reference in an article about the legal principle of Estoppel is like putting a reference about your nose in an article about beans. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, while individual anarchists -- such as Randy Barnett and Noam Chomsky, but certainly not Kinsella -- write prolifically for mainstream sources, anarchism tends to be a fringe ideology. I don't know of any anarchist publications that are mainstream RS. So this isn't at all an unreasonable presumption.

Moreover, since you seem to believe Kinsella's article relates to "law", I'm surprised by your view that LvMI is apparently an RS for legal matters. Do you therefore think, esp. because Kinsella builds off of Hoppe, that Hoppe's argumentation ethics should be cited here as well? Steeletrap (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, the link you removed was broken. That fact, and the invalid rationale for removing the reference lead me to believe that you had not read the reference. (Still, I have stricken my remark about not reading the reference because the overall rationale for removal remains invalid.) Please note that I am not the original poster of the reference – I added it back after it was improperly removed. Whether Kinsella is "regularly" published by OUP hardly matters. He has OUP published books and his Trademark Practice and Forms is regularly published by West/Thomson Reuters (because subscribers to such legal practice guides receive periodic updates). Keeping the reference in the article IAW WP:PRESERVE is the best practice. Tag it with failed reference or other tags if you wish, but don't attempt to WP:CENSOR WP because you have a dislike for Mises.org published authors. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear – I objected to the removal of an item in the reference listing and because the removal was not supported by a valid edit summary or rationale. In fact Kinsella's article talks about "dialogical estoppel" and punishment and “argumentation ethics” in philosophical, not legal, terms. So it is not a valid reference for this legal topic. Now if you'd like to remove the reference with an edit summary of "remove reference which isn't used to support article text & simply involves non-legal topics", you are most certainly welcome to do so. Then it would be clear that the removal was based on something other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you're teetering on the edge here :). I don't see anybody other than yourself disputing this inappropriate see also link. Users will come to this page to research a legal principle, not Kinsella's brand of philosophical whatnot. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The imputations of bad faith are really starting to me. I don't dislike LvMI authors; I recognize -- as they do -- that they are fringe. I also think Scientologists are fringe, but I certainly don't dislike or disrespect them. You are smart and educated, so I know you can understand that one may be a mainstream RS on some matters (as Kinsella certainly is on technical legal matters, such as the history of patent law) but not an RS on other matters (namely, economics and philosophy, where he holds fringe views that are not published by mainstream, reliable sources). In the context of the relevant article, he is making a philosophical and theoretical point. It was published not by an RS but by the Mises Institute. I urge you to AGF and consider the good-faith, logically sound rationale behind my argument. Steeletrap (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Kinsella article is normative and fringe

The entire estoppel article is about what the law is, not what it ought to be. Kinsella is out of place because his essay is normative, not positive. It is also WP:Fringe. It applies estoppel to justify retributive justice, by arguments such as "[if] an aggressor kidnaps and cuts off the hand of the victim. The victim is clearly entitled to do the same to the aggressor ... The victim would also be entitled to cut off both of the aggressor’s hands"; and "For poor [thieves and other aggressors], there is no property to take as restitution, and themere infliction of pain on the aggressor may not satisfy some victims. They would be entitled to enslave the aggressor, or sell him into slavery or for medical testing, to yield the best profit possible." How exactly does this stuff belongs in the article? Steeletrap (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you do not think the Kinsella piece should be posted as a reference in the article, why are you conducting WP:OR with this edit [1] ? Are you trying to make a WP:POINT? As I suggested above, remove it. Justify the removal with a straightforward edit summary, untinged with POV. (I have agreed that Kinsella's essay does not qualify as RS for the article. Indeed, it does not qualify for a Further reading item.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not engaging in OR; please tell me where the OR is in my description (unsubstantiated accusations are PAs). I would prefer it being removed wholesale, but if it's going to be included, better to have it be accurately represented. The Kinsella stuff should be merged into Argumentation ethics since he clearly adopts Hoppe's "universalization principle." Steeletrap (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are convinced it should be removed, I agree; please remove it. I am glad that you appear to agree with my "biased" argument and disagree with your prior statements. I am not going to acquiesce to personal accusations of bad faith and bias. Nor I'm I going to do a 2RR on a Mises-related issue. Steeletrap (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you listen to reason, Srich. Thanks for removing that link and I hope this is the start of a better-listening and more collaborative Srich. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Other countries"?

Other than what? Wikipedia is not supposed to be UK or US centric. Mjaggard (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Issue Estoppel Article Link?

I noticed that there is an article in Wikipedia for Collateral estoppel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel) that exists, but is not linked to in this article. Could we please add this link to that section, since it can provide more information about this topic? 50.39.184.154 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, disregard. I missed the link in the See Also section. 50.39.184.154 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)