In estoppel it is necessary for there to have been an unequivocal representation of fact by words or conduct: ‘A party can represent that he will not enforce a specific legal right by words or conduct. He can say so expressly – this of course he can only do if he is aware of the right. Alternatively he can adopt a course of conduct which is inconsistent with the exercise of that right. Such a course of conduct will only constitute a representation that he will not exercise the right if the circumstances are such to suggest either that he was aware of the right when he embarked on the course of conduct inconsistent with it or that he was content to abandon any rights he might enjoy which were inconsistent with that course of conduct.’
Citations:
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 431
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Youell v Bland Welch and Co Ltd (No 1) QBD 1990
The insurance slip was superseded by a formal policy. This was agreed but the defendant reinsurers submitted that the slip could be looked at as an aid to the construction of the policy.
Held: It was inadmissible: ‘The drafting of the slip . .
Cited by:
Cited – Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Limited (In Liquidation) (a Body Incorporate Under the Laws of Bermuda) v Johnson and Higgins Limited HL 18-Oct-2001
Brokers contracted to obtain re-insurance of risks undertaken by the claimants. They negligently failed to obtain full cover. The question at issue was whether they were liable for the full loss, or whether their duty was limited to obtaining . .
See also – Youell v Bland Welch and Co Ltd (No 1) QBD 1990
The insurance slip was superseded by a formal policy. This was agreed but the defendant reinsurers submitted that the slip could be looked at as an aid to the construction of the policy.
Held: It was inadmissible: ‘The drafting of the slip . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Estoppel
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.181787
