Where does promissory estoppel end and equitable estoppel begin?
first of all what the hell is estoppel?
The term comes from estoupail, which meant “stopper plug” in French. Its is stopping something– like an imbalance. Or the imbalance of the situation. The term is related to the verb “estop” which comes from the Old French term estopper, meaning “stop up, impede”.
Promissory estoppel occurs an expectation was promised. The promisee reasonably relied on that promise and will suffer detriment if the expectation is not met. when an act is involved, such as quitting a job — Feinberg v Pfeiffer Co (the loyal bookkeeper who retired thinking that she would have a $200/monthly pension) and Ricketts v Scothorn (the old man who promised his grandaughter that she need not work anymore) In both cases the court said promissory estoppel– whether gift or not the promissee relied on the funds so therefore the promissor must pay.
Equitable estoppel occurs on the basis of an inducement that is not led by a promise. When I am given to believe a thing. The classic example involves banking. If i inquire as to my bank balance and am told by the bank that it is $500 and on the basis of this information I write a check against that money then discover later that the bank erred and there was no money in the account, the i can sue for equitable estoppel. The bank made no promises, but there is still estoppel.
is that it is the principle by which a party who knows or should know the truth is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from denying, or asserting the contrary of, any material fact which, by his words or conduct, affirmative or negative, intentionally or through culpable negligence, he has induced another, who was excusably ignorant of the true facts and who had a right to rely upon such words or conduct, to believe and act upon them thereby, as a consequence reasonably to be anticipated, changing his position in such a way that he would suffer injury if such denial or contrary assertion was allowed. 28 Am Jur 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 28
what the hell does that mean?
sounds like it means same as above except that the promissee is ignorant of true facts…
Terms Used: estoppel, feinberg v pfeiffer, ricketts v scothorn,