- /AstopAl/"Estoppel" means that party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a right to detriment of other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and has acted accordingly. Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 540 P.2d 656, 658.A principle that provides that an individual is barred from denying or alleging a certain fact or state facts because of that individual's previous conduct, allegation, or denial. A doctrine which holds that an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct may not be adopted to loss or injury of another. Brand v. Farmers Mut. Protective Ass'n of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 95 S.W.2d 994, 997.See Restatement, Agency, Second, No. 8B.Estoppel is a bar or impediment which precludes allegation or denial of a certain fact or state of facts, in consequence of previous allegation or denial or conduct or admission, or in consequence of a final adjudication of the matter in a court of law. It operates to put party entitled to its benefits in same position as if thing represented were true. May v. City of Kearney, 145 Neb. 475, 17 N.W.2d 448, 458.Under law of "estoppel" where one of two innocent persons must suffer, he whose act occasioned loss must bear it. Sackenreuther v. Winston, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 93, 96.Elements or essentials of estoppel include change of position of parties so that party against whom e. ppel is invoked has received a profit or benefit or party invoking estoppel has changed his position to his detriment. Estoppel is or may be based on acceptance of benefits, Harjo v. Johnston, 187 Okl. 561, 104 P.2d 985, 992, 998; actual or constructive fraudulent conduct, Peterson v. Hudson Ins. Co., 41 Ariz. 31, 15 P.2d 249, 252;admissions or denials by which another is induced to act to his injury, Wabash Drilling Co. v. Ellis, 230 Ky. 769, 20 S.W.2d 1002, 1004; agreement on and settlement of facts by force of entering into contract, Masterson v. Bouldin, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 301, 307; assertion of facts on which another relies assumption of position which, if not maintained, would result in injustice to another; concealment of facts, Greer v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 305, 315; conduct or acts amounting to a representation or a concealment; consent to copyright infringement, whether express or implied from long acquiescence with knowledge of the infringement, Edwin L. Wiegand Co. v. Harold E. Trent Co., C.C.A.Pa., 122 F.2d 920, 925; election between rights or remedies, Mason & Mason v. Brown, Tex.Civ. App., 182 S.W.2d 729, 733; inaction, Hankins v. Waddell, 26 Tenn.App. 71, 167 S.W.2d 694, 696; laches; language or conduct which has induced another to act, Brown v. Federal Land Bank of Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 180 S.W.2d 647, 652. Estoppels at common law are sometimes said to be of three kinds:(1) by deed;(2) by matter of record;(3) by matter in pais.The first two are also called legal estoppels, as distinguished from the last kind, known as equitable estoppels.- collateral attack- contract, estoppel by, deed, estoppel by- laches, estoppel by- legal estoppel- negligence, estoppel by- promissory estoppel- silence, estoppel by; and verdict, estoppel by, see those titles.See also authority (authority by estoppel).Acts and declarations.An "estoppel by acts and declarations" is such as arises from the acts and declarations of a person by which he designedly induces another to alter his position injuriously to himself.- estoppel by deed@ estoppel certificateA signed statement by a party, such as a tenant or a mortgagee, certifying for the benefit of another party that a certain statement of facts is correct as of the date of the statement, such as that a lease exists, that there are no defaults and that rent is paid to a certain date. Delivery of the statement by the tenant prevents (estops) the tenant from later claiming a different state of facts@ estoppel in paisThe doctrine by which a person may be precluded by his act or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Mitchell v. Mclntee, 15 Or.App. 85, 514 P.2d 1357, 1359. The doctrine rests upon principle that when a person by his acts causes another to change his condition to his detriment, person performing such acts is precluded from asserting a right which he otherwise might have had. Peplinski v. Campbell, 37 Wash.2d 857, 226 P.2d 211, 213.See also equitable estoppel.@Misrepresentation.Pleading.Pleader must allege and prove not only that person sought to be estopped made misleading statements and representations but that pleader actually believed and relied on them and was misled to his injury thereby. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Midas Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 342, 345.Under rules practice in most states, and in the federal courts, estoppel is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded. Fed.R. Civil P. 8(c).Ratification distinguished.The substance of "estoppel" is the inducement of another to act to his prejudice. The substance of "ratification" is confirmation after conduct. By ratification party is bound because he intended to be, while under "estoppel" he is bound because other party will be prejudiced unless the law treats him as legally bound. Carlile v. Harris, Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 622.See ratification.Res judicata distinguished.A prior judgment between same parties, which is not strictly res judicata because based upon different cause of action, operates as an "estoppel" only as to matters actually in issue or points controverted. Etna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Martin, C.C.A.Ark., 108 F.2d 824, 827; Cunningham v. Oklahoma City, 188 Okl. 466, 110 P.2d 1102, 1104.In a later action upon a different cause of action a judgment operates as an "estoppel" only as to such issues in second action as were actually determined in the first action. Lorber v. Vista Irr. Dist., C.C.A.CaL, 127 F.2d 628, 634.The doctrine of "res judicata" is a branch of law of "estoppel". Krisher v. McAllister, 71 Ohio App. 58, 47 N.E.2d 817, 819.The plea of "res judicata" is in its nature an "estoppel" against the losing party from again litigating matters involved in previous action, but the plea does not have that effect as to matters transpiring subsequently. Fort Worth Stockyards Co. v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 549, 555.See res (res judicata).Waiver distinguished.Waiver is voluntary surrender or relinquishment of some known right, benefit or advantage; estoppel is the inhibition to assert it.In insurance law, however, the two terms are commonly used interchangeably.See waiver
Black's law dictionary. HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M. A.. 1990.