Editing Contracts/Estoppel
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
The law relating to contractual estoppel (in English law) was summarised in {{cite BAILII|litigants=Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd |court=EWCA |division=Civ |year=2006 |num=386 |date= }}: | The law relating to contractual estoppel (in English law) was summarised in {{cite BAILII|litigants=Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd |court=EWCA |division=Civ |year=2006 |num=386 |date= }}: | ||
There is no reason in principle why parties to a contract should not agree that a certain state of affairs should form the basis for the transaction, whether it be the case or not. For example, it may be desirable to settle a disagreement as to an existing state of affairs in order to establish a clear basis for the contract itself and its subsequent performance. Where parties express an agreement of that kind in a contractual document neither can subsequently deny the existence of the facts and matters upon which they have agreed, at least so far as concerns those aspects of their relationship to which the agreement was directed. The contract itself gives rise to an estoppel ...<ref>''Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd'', at paragraph 56.</ref> | {{cquote|There is no reason in principle why parties to a contract should not agree that a certain state of affairs should form the basis for the transaction, whether it be the case or not. For example, it may be desirable to settle a disagreement as to an existing state of affairs in order to establish a clear basis for the contract itself and its subsequent performance. Where parties express an agreement of that kind in a contractual document neither can subsequently deny the existence of the facts and matters upon which they have agreed, at least so far as concerns those aspects of their relationship to which the agreement was directed. The contract itself gives rise to an estoppel ...<ref>''Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd'', at paragraph 56.</ref>}} | ||
=== Deed === | === Deed === |