Yes, a party to failed lease negotiations can potentially assert a claim for promissory estoppel if they can demonstrate that a clear promise was made during negotiations, that they reasonably relied on that promise, and that their reliance resulted in a detriment. However, the success of such a claim will depend on the specific facts of the case, including the nature of the negotiations and whether the promise was sufficiently definite to support reliance. Courts typically require a substantial showing of reliance and detriment, so the party would need to provide compelling evidence.
Equitable doctrine refers to a set of legal principles that govern fairness and justice in the resolution of disputes, often applied when strict application of the law would lead to unjust outcomes. These doctrines, such as promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel, allow courts to consider circumstances beyond rigid legal rules to achieve a fair result. Equitable remedies, like injunctions or specific performance, can also be granted when monetary damages are inadequate. Overall, equitable doctrine aims to promote fairness in legal proceedings.
There is a range of possibilities, depending on how long you plan to stay and whether or not you want to be friendly with your neighbors: * You can sell them the land under the driveway, which could also allow them to tear out the driveway and put in something worse, * sell them an easement to use that part of your property to cross your land, which also means it can be used as a driveway forever, * license this particular owner to use the driveway (or the driveway easement) either annually, or until they sell the house or remove the driveway, * ask them to move their driveway, or * sue them for trespass and force them to move the driveway. Whatever you do, put it into writing and have a local real estate attorney review it for you. If you completely ignore the problem, it will not go away, and the longer you wait, the more rights the neighbors may have (laches, estoppel, easement by prescription, adverse possession).
Promissory estoppel is when a person makes a false statement to another and the listener relies on what was told to him/her in good faith and to his/her disadvantage.
ture
Detrimental reliance (promissory estoppel), 181, 188 Cheeseman (2010) stated, "EQUITY: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL The doctrine of promissory estoppel, or equitable estoppel, is another equitable exception to the strict application of the Statute of Frauds. The version of promissory estoppel in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides that if parties enter into an oral contract that should be in writing under the Statute of Frauds, the oral promise is enforceable against the promisor if three conditions are met: (1) The promise induces action or forbearance of action by another, (2) the reliance on the oral promise was foreseeable, and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the oral promise.Where this doctrine applies, the promisor is estopped ( prevented ) from raising the Statute of Frauds as a defense to the enforcement of the oral contract." (p.226)
True. Promissory estoppel is applied by courts in situations where there is no enforceable contract, but one party has made a promise that the other party reasonably relied upon to their detriment. This legal principle aims to prevent injustice by allowing the reliance on the promise to be enforced, even in the absence of a formal contract.
Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from arguing something contrary to a claim they previously made or accepted as true, especially if doing so would harm another party who relied on the original claim. It aims to uphold fairness and prevent inconsistency in legal proceedings. There are various forms of estoppel, including equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel, each addressing different scenarios where reliance on a statement or action is at stake. Essentially, estoppel serves to protect the integrity of legal agreements and representations.
You can file a class action, find an attorney here http://www.lawinfo.com/attorney/Class-Action/
Promissory estoppel is enforcement of a promise even where there is no binding contract. What you must prove for promissory estoppel vairous from state ot state, but usually includes (1) A clear and unambiguous promise; (2) Reasonable reliance upon the promise; and (3) Detriment to the promisee, caused by his or her reliance on the promise, and (4) it would be inequitable, i.e., unfair, not to enforce the promise. Fraud requires the additional proof that the promisor never intended to perform when s/he made the promise. Since fraud requires the same elements PLUS this adiditonal element, it would seem that a fraud claim to enforce a promise would never succeed if a promissory estoppel does not. However, you can use fraud to get damages for a misprepresented fact that is not a promise. A fact might mean a statement that certian facts exist. This type of fraud requires you to prove that a defendant made a false statement of fact, intending you to rely on it - or ought to have expected that you would rely on it - and you reasonably relied ot your detriment. (F
If you have an estoppel letter stating that there are no outstanding dues or fees owed the HOA cannot pass any past due amounts on to you. That estoppel letter is binding.An estoppel letter is a legal document that outlines information regarding the current owner's financial standing in regards to the HOA, what is due and what has not been paid. It also indicates any assessments that are in progress or projected. The estoppel letter is legally binding. Negotiations often result between sellers and buyers once an estoppel letter is received and the negotiations determine who will be responsible for paying any amounts due. It is the responsibility of the buyer's attorney to make certain the buyer takes title with a clean slate.On the other hand, if the HOA is billing you for amounts due prior to your taking title that were reported in the estoppel letter then you need to call the attorney who represented you at your closing and forward the bills. Presumably, they didn't do their job. It would be a serious oversight on the part of that attorney if the outstanding fees and dues were not paid at the closing and the attorney should pay them.
The mortgage co. has so many days required by law to respond to the request in writing to establish the pay-off amount of mortgage note with validation if they fail to do so they are in serious violation of statute and are at risk for fines an/or penalities by the state licencing board, etc.! If one party promises to excuse the other party from their duties, but then goes back on this promise in a unfair way, the court may allow this following the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel, established in the case of Central London Property trust v High Trees House (1949).
Yeah it's estoppel, whether it be collateral estoppel or any other estoppel, it is estoppel, although estoppel and double jeopardy are synonymous. In civil matter, it's called "res judicata". That's civil double jeopardy. A case dismissed with prejudice or found that the defendant is liable will result in res judicata.
The estoppel certificate is typically signed by the party who is providing the certificate. For example, if a tenant is providing the estoppel certificate to a landlord, the tenant would sign the certificate.
you do!