Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Estoppel is a judicial device whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on their word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". [1] [2] [3] Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. In common law legal systems, the legal doctrine of estoppel is based in both common ...
Of Documentary Evidence (56 to 73) Public documents (74 to 77) Presumptions As To Documents(78 to 93) Chapter 6 Clauses 94 to 103 Of The Exclusion Of Oral Evidence By Documentary Evidence Part 4 Production And Effect Of Evidence Chapter 7 Clauses 104 to 120 Of The Burden Of Proof Chapter 8 Clauses 121 to 123 Estoppel Chapter 9 Clauses 124 to 139
Estoppel forms part of the rules of equity, which were originally administered in the Chancery courts. Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts (e.g. words said or actions performed) which is different from an earlier set of facts.
It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the contract law of England and Wales. However, the most significant part of the judgment is obiter dictum as it relates to hypothetical facts; that is, the landlord did not seek repayment of the full wartime rent. Denning J held estoppel to be applicable if
Prosecution history estoppel, also known as file-wrapper estoppel, is a term used to indicate that a person who has filed a patent application, and then makes narrowing amendments to the application to accommodate the patent law, may be precluded from invoking the doctrine of equivalents to broaden the scope of their claims to cover subject matter ceded by the amendments.
Legal jurisdictions which provide for apparent authority include the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and South Africa.The doctrine of apparent authority is based on the concept of estoppel, thus, it prevents the principal from denying the existence of agency to a third party, provided that a representation, as to the agent's authority, has been made by him to the third ...
But this estoppel, for manifest reasons, does not prevent him from denying infringement. To determine such an issue, it is admissible to show the state of the art involved, that the court may see what the thing was which was assigned, and thus determine the primary or secondary character of the patent assigned, and the extent to which the ...
K. (C.) v K. (J.) [2004] IESC 21; [2004] 1 IR 224, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the doctrine of estoppel (where the court can prevent someone going back on his/her word) could not be used to change the status of a person, when the status, as a matter of law, never actually changed.