Chapter

<i>Would It Be Unconscionable</i> …?

ELIZABETH COOKE

in The Modern Law of Estoppel

Published in print March 2000 | ISBN: 9780198262220
Published online January 2010 | e-ISBN: 9780191714412 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198262220.003.0006
Would It Be Unconscionable …?

Show Summary Details

Preview

In deciding whether or not it is wrong, or unconscionable, for the maker of a representation to go back on it, the courts consider a number of factors. One must look at the conditions for estoppel once a representation has been made out. If the historical distinction between common law and equitable estoppels no longer reflects the way decisions are made, then in all cases of estoppel a decision is taken about unconscionability (or inequity); that is, whether or not it is wrong for the maker of a representation to go back on it. In deciding this, the court looks at whether or not there has been detrimental reliance on the representation, and is free to consider other factors. This chapter considers unconscionability as the deciding factor in the question of whether or not there is an estoppel and then examines detrimental reliance and other factors relevant to that decision.

Keywords: common law; unconscionability; detrimental reliance; representation

Chapter.  20382 words. 

Subjects: Civil Law

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.