(redirected from Equitable estoppel)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal.
Related to Equitable estoppel: Promissory estoppel

Agency by Estoppel

A situation in which a reasonable person may assume agency agreement exists when it does not. For example, if a person or company allows another person or company to use proprietary letterhead to send out correspondence, agency by estoppel may exist. Because the agency is assumed, the (presumed) principal may be legally bound by the agent's actions.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved


A doctrine that stops one from denying facts or taking a course of action because it would be unfair under the circumstances.It may be because someone else relied on former statements regarding the facts or because someone else relied upon a situation allowed to exist by a party, so that the party cannot now be allowed to change that situation.The concept commonly arises in three situations:

1. Before the sale of an income-producing property, the tenants sign estoppel certificates acknowledging they have no claims against the landlord, no defenses to any of the terms or conditions of their lease, and no outside or “side” agreements varying the terms of the lease. After the sale, the tenant cannot claim otherwise, even if all parties agree that there has been a wrong done to the tenant by the prior landlord and the tenant would otherwise be able to cancel the lease if it were not for the estoppel certificate.

2. A subdivision with restrictive covenants grows lax in the enforcement of them and per- mits many violations over the years regarding, for example, parking boats and motor homes in driveways. If one buys a home in the subdivision and keeps a motor home in the driveway, the principle of estoppel will prevent the homeowners association from suddenly deciding to enforce that particular covenant.

3. A government employee tells someone one thing, and it later turns out to be wrong. The citizen has already taken action on the incorrect information. In most circumstances, courts will not allow estoppel against a government or government agency.

The Complete Real Estate Encyclopedia by Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD. Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
References in periodicals archive ?
While equitable estoppel arises from facts which are all matters in pais, there is an essential and marked distinction between them [equitable estoppel] and legal estoppel in pais.
in Australia is that equitable estoppel should only protect the reliance
Second, equitable estoppel is "distinct" from equitable tolling.
(151) Equitable estoppel is essentially the merger of promissory estoppel, conventional estoppel, and proprietary estoppel into one coherent doctrine that allows estoppel to be used as a cause of action but that limits recovery for reliance, as opposed to expectation, losses.
Notwithstanding ratification and equitable estoppel or other legal remedies that may be available to the parties when an issue arises related to commitment authority, these are time-consuming and expensive processes.
Courts have provided some general guidelines for applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel in patent disputes.
He offers one interesting insight in response to Yorio & Thel's claim that reliance theory cannot explain the courts' insistence on the existence of a promise:(65) "But Section 90 focuses on promise-induced reliance because other theories, such as equitable estoppel and misrepresentation, already protect injured parties from conduct and statements inducing detrimental reliance.
Rustlewood moved for partial summary judgment on several grounds: 1) the fee was an illegal rate; 2) the fee was to collect for past due amounts and, as such, was barred by the contract doctrine of account stated; 3) equitable estoppel barred the county from "assessing higher amounts to recover alleged past due amounts"; 4) the statute of limitations barred collection of such past due money; 5) the fee constituted an illegal ex post facto law.
The appeals court remanded the case back to trial on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. According to the estoppel doctrine, normal rules are suspended if an individual has been influenced by a falsehood.
Doctrines of equitable estoppel traditionally addre concern.
It alternatively ruled that the First Amendment would bar enforcement of the promise on "equitable estoppel" grounds.