Estoppel

Estoppel (pronounced e-stop-uhl or est-opp-al)

(1) In common law jurisdictions, a legal principle that prevents a party from asserting otherwise valid legal rights against another party because of conduct by the first party, or circumstances to which the first party has knowingly contributed, make it unjust for those rights to be asserted.

(2) In common law jurisdictions, a rule of evidence whereby a person is precluded from denying the truth of a statement of facts he has previously asserted.

1250-1300: From the Middle English from the Middle French estoupail or estopail (stopper; plug; a bung made of oakum (étoupe) from estoper (to stop up; to plug), a derivative of estoupe from the Latin stuppa ("broken flax, tow"), from Ancient Greek στύππη (stuppē) (broken flax).  Estoppel is the noun; the verb is estop, from the Middle English estoppen, from the Old French estopper & estouper, probably a variation on the Vulgar Latin stuppāre (to stop up with tow, caulk).  The once common misspelling estoppal seems to have gone extinct since law students began using spell-checkers.  Estoppel, estoppage & estop are nouns and estopped & estopping are verbs; the noun plural is estoppages.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, 2011.

Equitable Estoppel is known also as Estoppel by Conduct or Estoppel in Pais (outside of court; without legal proceedings) and refers to estoppel arising by virtue of a party's actions.  Equitable estoppel prevents a party from taking a position that is inconsistent with their past conduct, especially when another party has relied on that conduct to their detriment. The classic example is where a party undertakes not to enforce their legal rights, leading another relying on that promise to act in a manner which is to their detriment, the party making the promise may be estopped from later asserting their legal rights.  Equitable estoppel is the companion of Promissory Estoppel which operates where one party makes to another an unambiguous promise to and the latter relies on that promise to their detriment. If later the promisor reneges on the promise, the court may estop them from doing so; promissory estoppel is often used to enforce promises that may not meet the strict requirements of a contract.  Collateral Estoppel is known also as Issue Estoppel and it stops a party from re-litigating an issue already riled upon in a previous case.  If an issue was essential to a previous judgment, provided the party had adequate opportunity to litigate, they will estopped subsequently from re-litigating the same issue.  Estoppel by Deed is known also as Estoppel by Record and applies in situations where a party makes a false statement about property rights in a written instrument (typically a will or deed).  If another party relies on that written instrument to their detriment, the party who made the false statement may be estopped from denying the truth of the statement.  Estoppel by Silence is known also as Estoppel by Acquiescence and occurs when one party's silence or failure to act leads another party to believe that certain facts or rights exist.  If the first party later tries to assert a contrary position, they may be estopped from doing so because of their earlier silence or inaction.  Estoppel by Representation arises when one party makes a false representation to another, and the other party relies on that representation to their detriment. The party making the false representation may be estopped from asserting a contrary position.  In Estoppel by Laches, if a party unreasonably delays asserting their legal rights and this delay prejudices another party, a court may in some circumstances estop the delayed party from later asserting those rights due to the unfairness of the delay.

Estoppel by Election (unknown in some jurisdictions) is a special instance of estoppel by conduct and arises in cases where there exists a plurality of gifts or rights which are inconsistent (or offered as alternatives) and the party who makes the gifts or creates the rights, shows by and express or implied intention that the party taking the gift or claiming the right should enjoy one of them, but not both.  Having made their choice, the receiving party cannot later renege and attempt to choose the other.  Estoppel by election can also be invoked in cases where a party cannot approbate or reprobate under the same instrument.  According to the most fastidious lawyers, the mysterious Constructive Estoppel really doesn’t exist and the term should be used only as a way to explain the mechanism of things like estoppel by silence, acquiescence or conduct because such concepts are analogous with the well-known constructive fraud.  It has been used in some jurisdictions in real property cases where the true state of affairs found to differ from what was construed.  Typically, the case will involve a transfer of property where the registration of a document operates as constructive notice of its contents.  One party may be unaware of the document or its contents but, because it is registered, it is deemed all possess such knowledge (the theory being if one wanted to have such knowledge it could be obtained).  The objection in such matters is not to the operation of estoppel but just the adjective “constructive”; either the facts of the case will disclose the conditions of estoppel are present (in which case the principle operates) or they are not (and the principal will not operate).

Estoppel has thus delighted lawyers in that it proved amenable to being formulated in so many flavors but the classic formulation remains promissory estoppel, dating from a judgment of an English court in 1877 but which remained unexplored by the judiciary until revived in 1946, after which it proliferated.  It’s an example of the law of equity intruding into common law to correct what would otherwise be an injustice were a strict and literal interpretation of law to prevail.  It holds (1) Where a party has acted in good faith upon representations by another, even if those representations were never reduced to a form in which they would create a legal relationship between the two, the other party cannot enforce their strict legal rights and (2) If a party represents to another that in certain circumstances, they would not seek to enforce their legal rights, they cannot subsequently depend on those rights.  Australian courts have extended the principle of estoppel, even allowing a historically essential condition of contract to be waived, the High Court of Australia (HCA) later fusing common law and equitable estoppels into a single unified doctrine.  However, the NSW Court of Appeal still treats estoppel at common law separately from equitable estoppel, this perhaps influenced by the long history of the old Equity Bar in that state.  NSW was the last major jurisdiction in the country to merge law and equity and the historic names of Equity and Common Law are still used for the court’s two divisions, some barristers still referring to themselves (it's said with something of a superior air) as members of the “equity bar”.