Talk:Estoppel

message: What is it?
- Issue estoppel (aka collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, estoppel per rem judicatam) is a defence that bars a party from litigating a specific issue that has been decided in a prior separate action. -
Stop program  ChristyleeGarris1984 01:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue estoppel 

message: Canadian Law includes the concept of Estoppel. "An estoppel is a doctrine of law which precludes a person from denying the truth of a statement formerly made by him or her or the existence of a series of facts which has caused someone to draw certain logical conclusions." In simpler terms, "An estoppel arises when a person is forbidden by law to speak against their own act or deed. A man's own act or acceptance stops or closes his mouth to prevent him from arguing the opposite."Rcmpsc (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Law 

message: This short paragraph relies exclusively on a single source, citing it somewhat redundantly four times. My (admittedly non-professional) reading of the relevant paragraph in the case cited suggests that the description here garbles and misrepresents the case law on this topic. Since there is a good bit more case law on this, a competent lawyer with more familiarity with the issue or able to review some of the other relevant cases should re-write this section.ScottForschler (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal law/American law subsection 

message: Could a native English speaker add a phonetic transcription and a sound sample? I believe the pronunciation of this word is a bit odd. Karl Stas 15:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just how it looks: 'eh' - 'stop' (and then an 'l' sound with hardly any vowel in between, like at the end of 'people') Therin83 12:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not obvious for a non-native speaker. I always though the stress would have been on the -el. – gpvos (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: When I was searching for ESTOP (a common abbreviation for Emergency stop), Wikipedia automatically redirected me to "estoppel". Perhaps a new disambiguation page called "ESTOP" should be made, with links to both "Estoppel" and "Emergency Stop".
:Done. – gpvos (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Estoppel vs. ESTOP

message: Estoppel (English law) is nearly identical to this article. Probably one has been split off from the other, and both versions have diverged. This is not useful; someone should merge them back, and list only the peculiarities of estoppel under English law as a section or maybe a separate article. – gpvos (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Nothing is gained by having a separate English Law version of this article. Dratman (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely agree 

message: Merging the two articles, which governs a legal rule applicable to different jurisdictions could create confusion in numerous situations and is not the right course of action. Indeed the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel is NOT the same as the operation of the doctrine in the US. For starters one cannot utilise the doctrine as a basis for an action in England. (See Combe v Combe.) 82.19.25.173 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Sure this is entirely wise 

message: "The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation 
The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation... 
...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false."
If estoppel is shield and not sword, shouldn't the plaintiff have induced the expectation on which the defendant has relied? Durobrivan 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old language of shields and swords isn't that helpful I think. Most varieties of estoppel (barring proprietary estoppel) are described as "shields", in that they are plead in answer to a cause of action. The shield and sword distinction is illusory in practice, because on a given set of facts you can construct the cause of action so that you can plead the "shield" in reply. In the example above for example, if the actual cause of action was breach of contract, the plaintiff will plead breach of contract, the defendant will plead a denial of some sort, and the estoppel will be plead in reply to negate his/her denial. --Cliau (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sufficiently confident to edit (not a lawyer) but... 

message: Does anyone know how a business partnership is created by/through an estoppel??  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evryedge (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the problem is that the issue is confused by the history of estoppel. Previous to the fusion of common law and equity, there was separate development of estoppel by representation in equity and in common law. Starting with a series of decisions beginning in Jorden v Money (1854), estoppel by representation began to be confined to certain circumstances (probably to restrict its separate growth), namely it had to be a representation of present fact, not intention or law. Therefore in Franklin v Manufacturers Mutual Insurance (1936), Sir Frederick Jordan described this form of estoppel as a "rule of evidence". This I think is true, but does not describe all the other species of estoppel. --Cliau (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estoppel in Partnerships??? 

message: from the introduction:
In the same way, a landlord might inform a tenant that rent has been reduced, for example, if there was construction or a lapse in utility services. If the tenant relies on this notice, the landlord could be estopped from collecting the full rent.
however in this case the landload would attampting to get rent out of the tenent, and therefore the party that created the exectation would be the plaintiff and not the dependent, specifically holding that any expectations should be void because they were not in writing. THe parties are opposite what the definition defines at the top of the article, however this example seems very strong. Is the definition for the term wrong? Is this a uncommon example? (unlikely) Are their cases where it goes the other way that I cant think of? Is there something I am missing? Scientus (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the examples aren't very well explained for a lay reader, but the expectation referred to is the expectation that the landlord will not collect the balance of the rent, and that the tenant relied on this to their detriment. 121.44.175.94 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems backwords, something unclear 

message: I think the first two paragraphs should be removed, the third paragraph is a better starting point work with. Estoppel as a supplement to consideration is but a very small part of estoppel. The other major issue is that estoppel is a doctrine in equity, not common law, and most judges and commentators recognise this distinction despite the fusion. Kraikk (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First two paragraphs

message: It is a nuisance that any amateur tries to qualify juridical or technical matters as easy to digest. It is not amust, that anyone may understand a matter in a lemma. Please qualify your comment before you put hands on editing.Wireless friend (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion allegation

message: The section about promissory estoppel in American law is an incoherent disaster, but I don't have the time to fix it myself right now.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written 

message: The entire estoppel article is about what the law is, not what it ought to be. Kinsella is out of place because his essay is normative, not positive. It is also WP:Fringe. It applies estoppel to justify retributive justice, by arguments such as "[if] an aggressor kidnaps and cuts off the hand of the victim. The victim is clearly entitled to do the same to the aggressor ... The victim would also be entitled to cut off both of the aggressor’s hands"; and "For poor [thieves and other aggressors], there is no property to take as restitution, and themere infliction of pain on the aggressor may not satisfy some victims. They would be entitled to enslave the aggressor, or sell him into slavery or for medical testing, to yield the best profit possible."
How exactly does this stuff belongs in the article? Steeletrap (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not think the Kinsella piece should be posted as a reference in the article, why are you conducting WP:OR with this edit  ? Are you trying to make a  WP:POINT? As I suggested above, remove it. Justify the removal with a straightforward edit summary, untinged with POV.  (I have agreed that Kinsella's essay does not qualify as RS for the article. Indeed, it does not qualify for a Further reading item.)  – S. Rich (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not engaging in OR; please tell me where the OR is in my description (unsubstantiated accusations are PAs). I would prefer it being removed wholesale, but if it's going to be included, better to have it be accurately represented. The Kinsella stuff should be merged into Argumentation ethics since he clearly adopts Hoppe's "universalization principle." Steeletrap (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text:  If you are convinced it should be removed, I agree; please remove it. I am glad that you appear to agree with my "biased" argument and disagree with your prior statements. I am not going to acquiesce to personal accusations of bad faith and bias. Nor I'm I going to do a 2RR on a Mises-related issue. Steeletrap (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Kinsella article is normative and fringe

message: Other than what? Wikipedia is not supposed to be UK or US centric. Mjaggard (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other countries"?