Estoppel - Definition - Law Dictionary Home Dictionary Definition estoppel

Definition :

Estoppel, a conclusive admission, which cannot be denied. It is of three kinds:-

(1) By matter of record, which imports such absolute and incontrovertible verity, that no person against whom it is producible shall be permitted to aver against it. A record concludes the parties thereto, and their privies, whether in blood, in law, or by estate, upon the point adjudged, but not upon any matter collateral or adjudged by inference, A judgment in an action in rem is absolutely binding upon all the world.

A conviction on the same facts is no estoppel in a civil action because the parties are not the same, Palace Shipping Co. v. Caine, 1907 AC 386.

(2) By deed. No person can be allowed to dispute his own solemn deed, which is therefore conclusive against him, and those claiming under him, even as to the facts recited in it. The general rule is that an indenture estops all who are parties to it, while a deed-poll only estops the party who executes

it, since it is his sole language and act, Shep. Touch. 53.

(3) In pais, i.e., by conduct or representation, as that a tenant cannot dispute his landlord's title; bringing an action of ejectment is an unequivocal act, Serjeant v. Nash, (1903) 2 KB 304. A false representation to create an estoppel must be a representation of an existing fact and must be acted on before it is corrected, Vagliano v. Bank of England, 1891 AC 107; Chadwick v. Manning, (1896) AC 231. The representation must be made by a principal or some one authorized to bind him, consequently the certification of shares which is not a company's certificate that the person named therein is registered as the holder of the shares in the register of the company, but a mere statement or receipt that the certificates referred to in a transfer have been lodged with a company; the statement being by the company's secretary does not estop the company from setting up the true facts. The secretary's authority is simply to give receipts for lodged certificates, and being a mere servant it cannot be assumed that he has any authority at all, see Whitechurch (George) Ltd. v. Cavanagh, 1902 AC 117. A company is estopped by its certificate as against any one who purchased on the faith of it, Bloomenthal v. Ford, 1897 AC 156. As to estoppel by signing a promissory note in blank, see Lloyds Bank v. Cooke, (1907) 1 KB 794, and by certifying identity of a stockholder, Bank of England v. Cutler, (1907)1 KB 889. See also generally Duchess of Kingston's case, (1766) 2 Sm. L.C., and Everest on Estoppel, 3rd ed., See FEED.

'Estoppel' is a rule of equity. That rule has gained new dimensions in recent years. A new class of estoppel has come to be recognised by the courts in this country as well as in England. The full implication of 'promissory estoppel' is yet to be spelled out, Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. v. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., (1972) 1 SCC 857: AIR 1972 SC 1311: (1972) 3 SCR 711.

Estoppel is but a rule of evidence and except is cases like those under s. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, when a grant is fed by estoppel, the rule does not operate to create interest in property regarding which the representation is made, Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarshan Dayal, (1973) 1 SCC 294: AIR 1973 SC 814.

Estoppel is a rule of equity which forbids truth being pleaded or representation, on which faith another has acted to his detriment, being retracted, Commis-sioner of Income Tax (Central) v. B.N. Bhttacharjee, (1979) 4 SCC 121: AIR 1979 SC 1725: (1979) 3 SCR 1133.

A bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., p. 570.

Estoppel, is frequently based upon the acceptance and retention by one having knowledge or notice of the fact, of benefits from a transaction, contract, instrument, regulation which he might have rejected or contested. This doctrine is obviously a branch of the rule against assuming inconsistent positions (American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn., Vol. 28, 1996, p. 67).