estoppel

(redirected from Detrimental reliance)
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial.
Related to Detrimental reliance: Equitable estoppel, Promissory estoppel

es·top·pel

 (ĕ-stŏp′əl)
n. Law
A bar that prevents a person from presenting evidence contradicting a certain established fact.

[Obsolete French estouppail, from Old French estouper, to stop up, from Vulgar Latin *stuppāre; see stop.]

estoppel

(ɪˈstɒpəl)
n
(Law) law a rule of evidence whereby a person is precluded from denying the truth of a statement of facts he has previously asserted. See also conclusion
[C16: from Old French estoupail plug, from estoper to stop up; see estop]

es•top•pel

(ɛˈstɒp əl)

n.
a legal bar that prevents a person from asserting a claim or fact that is inconsistent with a position that the person has previously taken.
[1575–85; < Middle French estoupail stopper]
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.estoppel - a rule of evidence whereby a person is barred from denying the truth of a fact that has already been settled
rule of evidence - (law) a rule of law whereby any alleged matter of fact that is submitted for investigation at a judicial trial is established or disproved
Translations

estoppel

n (Jur) → rechtshemmender Einwand
References in periodicals archive ?
These statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause Ballard's actual results to be materially different, including general economic and regulatory changes, detrimental reliance on third parties, successfully achieving our business plans and achieving and sustaining profitability.
This directly contravenes basic contract law, which establishes that waiver depends on the intent of the waiving party rather than on whether there is detrimental reliance by the opposing party.
XYZ), Guidry's hypothetical errors and omissions insurer, claiming damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, detrimental reliance, payment of a thing not owed, and violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA).
PS Products is suing JM-Ark for fraud, breach of contract, misrepresentation and detrimental reliance.
element of the event centres around the detrimental reliance of the
On the other hand, courts have also been prepared to enforce modified promises not only on the ground that there is actually consideration in the modified promise because the promisor has promised to do substantially more in the modified promise (4) but also on the alternative grounds that there may be consideration in a forbearance to sue to enforce the original promise once the promisor has asked for a modification on the threat of potential breach of contract; or in detrimental reliance by the promisee who has accepted the modified contract at the insistence of the promisor; (5) or in a mutual agreement to rescind the original contract and replace it with a new contract containing the modified promise.
INSIDE CIRCUITS 56 6TH CIRCUIT Court Debates Disability in Drug Case 58 1ST CIRCUIT Creators of Bogus Diet Supplement Ads Lose Appeal 60 2ND CIRCUIT Executives Can't Negotiate Away SOX Clawbacks 62 CIRCUIT ROUNDUP 3rd Circuit Court Clarifies Detrimental Reliance 5th Circuit Injured Worker's Suit Switches States 9th Circuit Shareholders Lose Oracle Case 10th Circuit Panel Attacks Campaign Contribution Limits
Hofer expresses concern that the "statistical discrimination" terminology has disadvantages, primarily in that it lumps together beneficial and detrimental reliance on prior data.
Among other things, it said that promissory estoppel need not undermine preliminary contract negotiations because damages in a case in which terms had not been sufficient to constitute a contract might appropriately be limited to restoring a plaintiff to the position he was in before his detrimental reliance on the promise.
Finding no written evidence of these statements or detrimental reliance on the statements by Pediatric, the court held the doctrine to be inapplicable.
Conventional estoppel does not destroy the need to have privity in order to make a contract; it merely states that the existence of a contract will not be a bar to proving that the promisor has committed a civil wrong vis-a-vis the third party through invocation of a shared convention and detrimental reliance.
Plaintiff alleges negligence, detrimental reliance.