Abstract
Abstract In a previous article, I discussed estoppel by convention. To summarize, that doctrine permits one person (the “estopper”—usually the plaintiff in a cause of action) from stopping another person (the “estoppee”—often the defendant) from asserting the truth of a fact or the correctness of a principle of law. The point I tried to make was that the estoppel is not nullified simply because the parties knew when entering into the contract or transaction that the fact or principle agreed on was not true; it is because they agreed to proceed on the basis of the convention, not the convention’s veracity, that the estoppel applies. In Tinkler, the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that the estoppel applied. In my respectful view, for the reasons discussed in this article, it erred in doing so.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.