This is an extract of our Estoppel document, which we sell as part of our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
CHANGE OF POSITION AND ESTOPPEL COMPARISON
1. All or nothing I. Avon CC v Howlett - showed how estoppel can operate only as an all or nothing defence. Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale - showed how change of position,
II. divorced from the rule of evidence strictures of estoppel, can operate in a pro tanto fashion.
2. Burrows view on this
- The pro tanto fashion is more appropriate for UE as it can begeared to the precise extent of the loss of enrichment He's anti-estoppel and hope that change of position will supplant estoppel completely in UE - although he accepts estoppel should
not disappear in other areas of law
3. Maddaugh's view
- As long as estoppel remains it gives the defendant who can satisfy its more stringent requirements an unwarranted complete defence
WHAT IS IT?
- Burrows - the essence of the defence is that D has detrimentally relied on a representation from C that the benefit is his to keep. Where it is established, it is an all or nothing defence - as opposed to change of position which is pro tanto
2. When has it applied?
- It's only ever been applied in the context of mistaken payment. Otherwise, it would be very rare that C would ever say D can have the benefit to keep
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment Notes.