Estoppel for dummys

Lockstep

We've started Estoppel in Legal science and I'm having a hard time understanding it, can anyone point me in the direction of a site that explains estoppel in simple terms?
Thanks

Gobán Saor

In very simple terms, the doctrine of promissory estoppel acts to make certain promises binding in the absence of consideration. It's covered reasonably well at http://www.lawteacher.net/Consideration_Lecture%202.htm

pirelli

The promise:
The procedure of OJT by trainer (seperate person) was completed for the employee and only part left was where a individual usually a engineer assessed the readiness of the employee for the test and then when satisfied completed the certification process by a formal test. The engineer become's satisifed with the employee and agree to a date for a test. Engineer Conduct's the test of the employee and the tell's him he has passed and is eligble to signed off and is promises he is certified.
Would be is this some kind of promise ?
Baically without the electronic sign off the employee will be out of the loop in regard training.
and as it happens the engineer several days later rather capricously sent an email a week later to the employee basically saying he wasnt going to sign off the employee in computer form and he felt the employee had made a mistake. Later it turned out the engineer decided this wasnt the real reason the mistake was trivial and forgotton. If The engineer however still hasnt signed of the employee in computer form and has never given nor communicated a reason. Employee will suffer a breach of contract or negative stipulation of contract if it continues.

Is this 'promissory estoppel' in some form.

Tom Young

.....snipped

pirelli

Would promissory estoppel be effective in work where a procedure which has a promise system
in place where if the promise is broken the promisee suffers due to reliance.?

pirelli

Tom Young wrote: »

.....snipped

?

Tom Young

I had authored a post and removed it temporatily. Estoppel is a straight forward enough topic but its confused by many. I'd look at the sources myself.

The equitable doctrine of Estoppel:

Where an estoppel arises, a person is precluded from asserting or denying a fact which he led others to believe
to be true. The equittable doctrine of estoppel began life as a rule of evidence.

It was a rule whereby in certain circumstances a litigant would be compelled to rely on certain facts or alternatively would
be prevented from relying on certain facts in support of his claim.

Generally was granted by King's and/or at the courts of chancery.

There are three forms of estoppel:

Estoppel by deed (Common law)
Estoppel by record (Common)
Estoppel by respresentation (Equitable/Contract Law)

Estoppel by deed prevents a person who has executed a deed from denying its legal effect. It is a common law doctrine.

Estoppel by record is also a common law doctrine. It compels recognition of previously determined litigation, and prevents a person
from denying the facts upon which a judgement against him was based.

Estoppel by representation, is an equitable doctrine **(Contract)

It is one of the doctrines of equity which is derived from the common law. Delany notes that "the essential basis [Estoppel by
representation] is the making of a representation by a person whether by words or conduct of an existing fact which causes another
party to incur detriment in reliance on this representation".

There are two equitable forms: Promissory and proprietary estoppel.

Key elements of a cliam of promissory estoppel are:

1. a pre-existing legal relationship between parties
2. an unambiguous relationship
3. reliance by the representee (and possibly detriment)
4. some element of unfairness or unconscionability
5. the estoppel is being used not as a cause of action but as a defence or as a rule of evidence to stop the other party raising a defence
6. remedy is a matter for the court

Tom Young

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation needs to be delineated but considered in line with estoppel. The recent case of Dunleavy v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown by Macken J is a very interesting read which vacilates between the two forms. The seminal case in Ireland on this is Webb v Ireland.

In brief this was the case of the Council houses offered for sale at 1990 prices and allowed under Legitimate Expectation to be sold on in 2005/6 at 1990 rates. I think this is under appeal.

This was a case where Plaintiffs were entitled to purchase maisonettes/half house flats at Pearse Close Sallynoggin which each of them currently rent from the Council. In addition the Council was ordered to sell these properties to the Plaintiffs at a price, which reflected the value of the properties in July 1996. The High Court also held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to have the amount of rent that they paid to the Council since July 1996 to the date of completion of the sales offset against the price to be paid for the maisonettes.

There are two other cases, one involved St Gerards School in Bray and the 'sacking' of a junior teacher and also a case involving the department of education and grants/free education for third level.

pirelli

Thanks Tom..

Shellie13

can anyone tell me where i can get info on re;a ward of court and their verdict on estoppel?!

REALLY stuck on a essay!
ANY info on estoppel in ireland especially cases would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

Tom Young

[1993] I.L.R.M. 657, In the Matter of J.R., a Ward of Court. Judgment Costello J.

Equity—Estoppel—Wardship—Dwelling house—Order of sale—Claim to an interest—Representation by ward—Detriment—Promissory estoppel—Imperfect gift—Constructive trust