Is it just me yaar? 'Estoppel by Conduct: A Contradiction in Terms?'
contract general advanced concept_confusionMain confusion yeh hai ki section 22 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 mein kaha hai ki jab koi vyakti kisi tarike se doosre ka virodh karke kuchh kar sakta hai, to vah uske upar estoppel by conduct ka khadga utha sakta hai. Lekin phir bhi, estoppel by conduct ko aam taur par Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 se juda jata hai, jo ki yeh kehta hai ki jab koi vyakti kisi galat vishvas par chala gaya hota hai, to woh apne vishvas par aage badhta hi jaata hai.
2 Comments
Aapke haath mein hai yaar! Estoppel by Conduct can seem contradictory, but think about it. It's not just about conduct, but also about the intentions behind it. If someone intentionally acts in a way that creates a reliance on them, they can't just change their mind later. It's a fair principle to prevent unfair advantage. Let's break it down further in class, yaar!
Totally, dost thou think estoppel by conduct is a 'contradiction in terms'? I was thinking the same thing during my contracts lectures. It's like, we're trying to estop someone based on their conduct, which isn't an express representation. Can someone clarify - what's the rationale behind this concept? Is it just a case of 'kuchh toh kuchh hota hai'?