Equitable estoppel. A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may compel a signatory plaintiff to arbitrate “when the causes of action against the nonsignatory are intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations,” and when the claims rely on “the same facts and are inherently inseparable from the arbitrable claims against signatory defendants.” Xxxxxx’x claims against Pexco were all intimately “founded in and intertwined” with his employment relationship with the staffing agency. Xxxxxx alleged identical claims and conduct against both defendants as joint employers, referring to them collectively as “defendants,” without any distinction. It was thus “inequitable for the arbitration about Xxxxxx’x assignment with Pexco to proceed with [the staffing agency], while preventing Pexco from participating.” This reasoning applied to statutory claims as well as contract claims.
Equitable estoppel. General Overview Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel was developed in response to the injustice that could follow from a person reneging on a promise that s/he has made. Where equitable estoppel applies a person will be prevented or ‘estopped’ from going back on his/her word. It’s important to emphasis the need for UNCONSCIONABILITY before equitable estoppel will apply: it is NOT available as a back-up submission in every case where the parties have failed to establish a binding contract.127 Common Law Estoppel Common law estoppel by conduct prevents a person from unjustly departing from an assumption or representation of past or existing fact that the other party has adopted or relied upon and which, unless the assumption or representation is adhered to, will cause that other party to suffer detriment.128 Classified as a rule of evidence that prevents a person denying what s/he has represented and instead trying to prove the facts. A rule of evidence because it may help from the factual foundation for an action ---but is NOT a cause of action itself. If the contract confers a cause of action on the party raising the estoppel, the cause of action may be enforced. Compels the party bound to adhere to the assumption that a contract exists.129 Only operates in relation to representation of past or existing fact, common law estoppel does NOT compel adherence to representation s of intention or promises. Development of the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel: High Trees and Promissory Estoppel ‘Where on party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted upon accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him, but he must accept their legal relations subject to the qualification which he himself has so introduced, even though it is not supported in point of law by any consideration but only by his word.’130 Xxxxxxx restricted promissory estoppel to the limited sense of not allowing the promisor to act inconsistently with the promise. Promissory estoppel was a ‘shield and not a sword’. Recognition of Equitable Estoppel Promissory estoppel was but one instance where an equity was created by estoppel.131 ‘ the principle that equity will come to the relief of a plaintiff who h...
Equitable estoppel. D. Defendants deny and dispute Plaintiffs' allegations and claims and also deny liability and damages.
Equitable estoppel. Plaintiff also contends that his situation meets the requirements to equitably estop the government from denying the existence of a contract between himself and the IRS.
Equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel is a theory which relies on the notion of equity and good faith.161 It is used to bar the resisting signatory or non-signatory from denying the applicability of the arbitration clause.162 Equitable estoppel is a theory most commonly used in common law jurisdictions. It is not unheard of in civil law countries either, although a different concept may be used instead, such as good faith or abuse of right.163 As stated above, equitable estoppel may sometimes be used as a parallel reasoning with the third party beneficiary doctrine. However, equitable estoppel is based on equity (as may be inferred from its name), and instead of finding consent it may “force” the non-signatory to arbitration or let the non-signatory invoke the arbitration clause regardless of the signatory’s objection. Equitable estoppel rests upon the concept that a party should not be able to act inconsistently with its previous actions or statements and this way avoid liability. Therefore, under the “direct benefits” estoppel theory, a party claiming or exercising rights directly derived from the provisions of a contract is also bound by the arbitration clause 158 See Hanotiau 2006, p. 15. 159 See ibid. p. 1180. 160 In addition to these two doctrines, it is advisable to bear in mind that several of these doctrines, especially ones that employ consent as their foundation, may be invoked or taken into account in assessing individual cases. For example, constructions based on implied consent and third party beneficiary doctrines may sometimes overlap. 161 See Xxx 2003, p. 139. 162 See Newman-Hill 2008, p. 567. 163 See Born 2009, p. 1194; see also Hanotiau 2006, p. 20. therein.164 Simply put, a person should not be able to pick the cherry (the benefit granted in the underlying agreement) from the top of the cake and leave the rest (the arbitration clause) untouched. As stated in Int'l Paper Co., “a party may be estopped from asserting that the lack of his signature on a written contract precludes enforcement of the contract's arbitration clause when he has consistently maintained that other provisions of the same contract should be enforced to benefit him”.165 There has been discussion on the use of equitable estoppel as a “sword” or “shield”.166 This discussion relates to whether the doctrine should only be available for use as a defense (shield) for non-signatories who want to invoke an arbitration clause. The opposite use as a sword would let signatory parties to invoke eq...
Equitable estoppel. More broad than promissory and can include conduct and representations, whereas promissory requires promise that induces detrimental reliance BUT, CT here is relying on RST that is really talking about promissory (pg. 227) HYPO: Appeal for D Reliance – Wasn’t a full promise made before P made arrangements? Maybe S.O.F. is statutory law that we shouldn’t usurp! (Squib Xxxxx v. Infinity) Use specially manufactured clause of 2-201 on pg. 231 – Move to Hawaii does not necessarily imply a non-terminable contract. Problem 2-12 (pg. 234) Express contract? No Contract implied in fact? No. They were neighbors. Xxxx protests and asks for no payment (Xxxxxxxxxxx). But, she does later accept payment of $250.
