Opinion ID: 76376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whetstone's Arguments Based on Estoppel

Text: 19 Whetstone makes several arguments that Kraft NA and Kraft UK are estopped from denying that Kraft UK is bound by the Settlement Agreement. None of these arguments are compelling and we reject them. 20
21 Whetstone argues that Kraft UK accepted the benefits of the Settlement Agreement and is, therefore, bound by its terms. Where a party accepts the benefits of a settlement agreement or a compromise of his case and knows, or in the exercise of due diligence should have known, the facts concerning that settlement, the party ratifies the settlement by accepting the benefits whether the settlement was in the first instance authorized by him, and he is thereafter estopped from attacking the settlement. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Sellan, 64 F.Supp.2d 1255, 1262 (S.D.Fla.1999) (holding that acceptance of a settlement check estops the party from challenging the settlement agreement even when the party did not sign the agreement). 22 Sea-Land Serv., Inc. is inapplicable to this case because Kraft UK accepted nothing. Kraft UK was not a party to the Settlement Agreement and Kraft NA entered into the agreement to enforce rights it independently held as an importer.
23 Whetstone further contends that Kraft UK is equitably estopped from denying that it is bound by the Settlement Agreement. Equitable estoppel consists of words or conduct which causes another person to believe a certain state of things exists, and to consequently change his or her position in an adverse way. Southeast Grove Mgt., Inc. v. McKiness, 578 So.2d 883, 886 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991); see Watson Clinic, LLP v. Verzosa, 816 So.2d 832, 834 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002) (listing the elements of equitable estoppel). 11 24 As a matter of law, Whetstone's equitable estoppel argument fails because Whetstone cannot satisfy the first element. There is no evidence that either Kraft NA or Kraft UK made any representation to Whetstone that Kraft UK would be bound by the agreement. Equitable estoppel sometimes applies when there is, as here, merely silence or inaction, but the doctrine only applies in such circumstances when the other party is misled to his or her injury. Southeast Grove Mgt., Inc., 578 So.2d at 886. Here, however, there is no evidence that Kraft NA or Kraft UK misled Whetstone to Whetstone's injury. 12 Consequently, equitable estoppel is inapplicable to this case. 25