Promissory estoppel
Swedish translation: Promissory estoppel ([explanation])
| 08:29 Oct 7, 2001 |
| English to Swedish translations [PRO] Law/Patents | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|  Selected response from: Sven Petersson Sweden Local time: 05:50 | |||
Grading comment
| ||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 +2 | Promissory estoppel ([explanation]) |
| ||
| 3 +1 | promissory estoppel |
| ||
| 3 | Avtalshinder |
|
Answers
34 mins confidence: 
peer agreement (net): +2
peer agreement (net): +2Promissory estoppel ([explanation]) Explanation: Treat as proper name and insert explanation within brackets or as footnote. Marerial for explanation: ESTOPPEL. "... equitable estoppel, finds its origin in the early case of Central London Property Trust Limited v. High Trees House Limited, [1947] K.B. 130, which determined essentially that where a representation is made by one party and relied upon by another to that person's detriment, the party making the representation will be estopped from following a contrary course of action. This concept has been modified to mean a basic sense of fairness and equity. One should not be able to say one thing, have it acted upon, and then behave differently than first represented." (Marchischuk v. Dominion Industrial Supplies, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 61.) Roscoe, J.A. in Adelaide Capital Corp. v. Offshore Leasing Inc. (1996), 149 N.S.R.(2d) 281 (NSCA) quotes Fridman in The Law of Contracts and lists the five essential features of promissory estoppel: (1) There must have been an existing legal relationship between the parties at the time the statement on which the estoppel is founded was made ... (2) There must be a clear promise or representation made by the party against whom the estoppel is raised, establishing his intent to be bound by what he has said ... (3) There must have been reliance, by the party raising the estoppel, upon the statement or conduct of the party against whom the estoppel is raised ... (4) The party to whom the representation was made must have acted upon it to his detriment ... (5) The promisee must have acted equitably. Roscoe, J.A. continued in the Adelaide Capital case in quoting Fridman: "[53] ... 'The function of promissory estoppel is to alter or affect the legal relations between the parties. Therefore it is essential that the statement or conduct that grounds the estoppel be intended to have such consequence. As Judson, J., said in Conwest Exploration Co. v. Letain, there must be 'an unambiguous representation of intention ... which was intended to be acted upon and was acted upon.' ..." Roscoe, J.A. then proceeds to quote her brother, Hallett, J. (as he then was), in Robertson v. McCarron (1986), 71 N.S.R.(2d) 34: "[59]... Ordinarily the five requisites necessary to invoke this type of estoppel are: 1. The person seeking to raise the estoppel must have made a mistake as to his legal rights. 2. He must have done some act to his detriment, such as the expenditure of money, on the faith of the mistaken belief. 3. The person sought to be estopped must know of the existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the right claimed by the party seeking to raise the estoppel. 4. The person sought to be estopped must know of the other's mistaken belief as to his rights. 5. The person sought to be estopped must have encouraged the other in the acts done to his detriment, either directly or by abstaining from asserting his own rights." Estoppel is a judicial tool which will be sometimes used by a judge to make a party live up to its representations. For example see how Cacchione, J., in Snair v. Halifax Ins. (1996), (145 N.S.R.(2d) 132.) uses it to get at an insurance company: "[60] In order for estoppel to apply: 1) there must be knowledge on the part of the insurer of the facts which indicate a lack of coverage; 2) there must be a course of conduct by the insurer upon which the insured relied; and 3) the insured must have been prejudiced as a result of his reliance on the insurer's course of conduct. ... [68] The final requirement for estoppel is that the insured rely on this course of conduct to his/her detriment. This has been referred to as prejudice." Reference: http://www.blupete.com/Law/Commentaries/E/Estoppel.htm |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
54 mins confidence:  peer agreement (net): +1
1 hr confidence:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
