- Project plans
- Project activities
- Legislation and standards
- Industry context
Last edited 15 Mar 2019
In very broad terms, 'estoppel' prevents a party from asserting a claim or right that contradicts something they have previously said or done, or something that has been legally established to be true.
The courts have held that in the absence of the essentials of a contract (namely; two or more parties, an intention to create legal relations, an agreement and consideration), a contract could still come into existence between parties if they have so conducted themselves as to a common assumption, in fact or law, that there is a contract and that it would be wrong or unreasonable for the parties thereafter to deny the existence of such a contract.
Estoppel contracts have received a mixed reception from the courts, finding favour in G. Percy Trentham v Architral Luxfer, and in Mitsui Babock Energy Ltd v John Brown Engineering Ltd, but being rejected in J. Murphy & Sons Ltd v ABB Daimler Benz.
 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki:
Featured articles and news
RSHP's Merano wins RIBA accolade.
How to differentiate between partial possession and early use.
Ofwat proposes £12 billion additional investment and £50 bill reductions.
Avoiding 'winner's curse' and other useful info.
Developing test methods for video flame/smoke detectors
Waiting for a new deal ...but will funding materialise?
Our servers have reached another milestone. Why not write an article and be seen by our 6.5 million users.
RSHP celebrates competition win in Paris.
All about approved inspectors.
Whilst apparently confusing, German conservation is actually not that different.
The rise and fall of council housing. Book review.
Drivers of change in global heating markets.