Estoppel: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Legal Principles Category:Small Claims Category:Landlord Tenant ==The Defence of Estoppel== ===[http://canlii.ca/t/1j0dz BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. v. Wellin...") |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===[http://canlii.ca/t/1j0dz BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. v. Wellington West Capital Inc., 2004 CanLII 33776 (ON SC)]=== | ===[http://canlii.ca/t/1j0dz BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. v. Wellington West Capital Inc., 2004 CanLII 33776 (ON SC)]=== | ||
[24] To assert estoppel by convention, a party must demonstrate that both parties embarked upon a course of conduct based upon the same premise or assumption. See Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd., [1982] 1 Q.B. 84 at 122 (C.A.) per Denning M.R. | [24] To assert estoppel by convention, a party must demonstrate that both parties embarked upon a course of conduct based upon the same premise or assumption. See Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd., [1982] 1 Q.B. 84 at 122 (C.A.) per Denning M.R. | ||
Revision as of 22:09, 21 December 2019
The Defence of Estoppel
BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. v. Wellington West Capital Inc., 2004 CanLII 33776 (ON SC)
[24] To assert estoppel by convention, a party must demonstrate that both parties embarked upon a course of conduct based upon the same premise or assumption. See Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd., [1982] 1 Q.B. 84 at 122 (C.A.) per Denning M.R.