silence, estoppel by

Such estoppel arises where person is under duty to another to speak or failure to speak is inconsistent with honest dealings. An agreement inferred from silence rests upon principle of "estoppel." Letres v. Washington Co-op. Chick Ass'n, 8 Wash.2d 64, 111 P.2d 594, 596.

Silence, to work "estoppel", must amount to bad faith, Wise v. United States, D.C.Ky., 38 F.Supp. 130, 134; and, elements or essentials of such estoppel include: change of position to prejudice of person claiming estoppel, Sherlock v. Greaves, 106 Mont. 206, 76 P.2d 87, 91; damages if the estoppel is denied, James v. Nelson, C.C.A.Alaska, 90 F.2d 910, 917; duty and opportunity to speak, Merry v. Garibaldi, 48 Cal.App.2d 397, 119 P.2d 768, 771; ignorance of facts by person claiming estoppel, Nelson v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Corporation, C.C.A.Ark., 76 F.2d 17; inducing person claiming estoppel to alter his position; knowledge of facts and of rights by person estopped, Consolidated Freight Lines v. Groenen, 10 Wash.2d 672, 117 P.2d 966, 968; misleading of party claiming estoppel, Lincoln v. Bennett, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 632, 636; reliance upon silence of party sought to be estopped, New York Life Ins. Co. v. Talley, C.C.A. Iowa, 72 F.2d 715, 718