Estoppel

The word means a stop. It is a legal and general term for obstruction or bar to one’s allegation or not accepting a fact against their previous allegation, denial, or action.

It is a bar preventing a party from asserting a fact or claim inconsistent with their previous position.

It is a principle in law founded on good faith. Suppose a person makes a false representation to another and acts upon it. In that case, the person who made such false representation shall not be allowed afterwards to set up that he represented falsehood. 

Consistency is the key principle, and an argument is an attempt to find the truth. 

Such laws restrict aggressive behaviour in a peaceful movement like minimum wage or anti-drug laws where the government is stopped from enforcing laws like imprisoning a person due to inadequate justification. 

It is used in terms of equity in law intended to achieve natural justice. Equity is not recorded in the statute. 

Estoppel is an example of equitable remedy and is used in capital markets and financial advisory services as promissory or proprietary where these represent reliance based stoppable that mainly is about collective information, where a person relies on words or actions of another and acts to their detriment as an outcome. 

This can be found in commodity contracts, where there is a legally binding contract, and the injured party can use it. 

For example-  Any written, verbal or implied contract by custom or behaviour must contain certain elements presented to make a legally enforceable contract. 

In contrast, some contracts are based on strict statutory requirements. For all, there should be a genuine offer, and there must be unqualified acceptance.

The parties are bound by such deals containing an acknowledgement of a state of affairs.

The maker of the statement is stopped from asserting the litigation that the opposite was true –

Whether or not it was true, such contractual deals will completely depend on the validity of the terms. 

In some cases, there can be some bargain between the two commercial parties and the party may rely on representation by the other or suffer detriment, and in such case, the injured party can plead estoppel.  For if one party buys a car for commercial purposes.

The court states that they were induced to purchase the product by their assumptions and not by the other party.

When entering any such contract, one should fully understand the nature of the transaction and the contractual relationship and know the risks and practices described in the agreement.

If the customer confirms they agree and understand the terms of the emerging risks of the deal, they cannot complain later about it. 

In the case of a contract between the investor and the bank, it may include the term that - it was not open to the investor to say that he did not understand the nature of the transaction in the contract and second, he was induced to contract by an inconsistent earlier statement by the bank. 

This means the contractual estoppels prevented the investor from avoiding the effect of the terms of the contract by arguing in the court that the opposite was true –

Where they did not read or understand the risk disclosure statement.