Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): termination is inappropriate. 3. Waiver and Estoppel Even if the Agreements have not been terminated, factual questions exist as to whether SBVS is estopped from asserting any right it may have had under the Agreements to replace the defective twin cable. Four elements are necessary to establish estoppel: “1) the party to be estopped must know the facts; 2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted on or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel has a right to believe it is so intended; 3) the latter must be ignorant of the true facts; and 4) he must rely on the former’s conduct to his injury.” United States v. King Features Entm’t, Inc., 843 F.2d 394, 399 (9th Cir.1988); see also Platt Pacific, Inc. v. Andelson, 6 Cal.4th 307, 319, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 597, 862 P.2d 158 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have presented evidence creating 
 Holding statements: (A) holding question of citys exercise of due care in enforcement of ordinance was question of fact and inappropriate for summary judgment (B) holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact (C) holding agreed judgment presents question of waiver or estoppel rather than question of jurisdiction (D) holding it is a question of fact (E) holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question
Output (English): holding agreed judgment presents question of waiver or estoppel rather than question of jurisdiction