Estoppel

The company's previous representations about the product's safety created an estoppel, preventing them from denying liability for the customer's injuries.

The parties involved in the dispute reached a settlement agreement with an estoppel provision.

The court invoked the doctrine of estoppel to prevent the witness from changing his testimony.

The estoppel prevents the insurance company from denying coverage after accepting premium payments for several years.

The defendant's previous statements created an estoppel that prevented him from denying his involvement in the contract.

The company's actions created an estoppel, preventing them from denying their responsibility for the accident.

The court recognized the doctrine of estoppel as a defense against the plaintiff's claim.

The estoppel doctrine was invoked to hold the landlord responsible for the repairs.

The plaintiff's estoppel claim was dismissed because she had accepted the terms of the settlement agreement.

The plaintiff relied on the doctrine of estoppel to support their argument.

The party's reliance on the doctrine of estoppel prevented the other side from contesting the validity of the contract.

The insurance company could not assert non-coverage due to estoppel, as they had accepted premium payments for years.

The company's estoppel prevented them from denying responsibility for the defective product.

The bank argued estoppel, claiming that the customer's consistent behavior created an expectation of credit.

The tenant argued estoppel, stating that the landlord's actions led them to believe the rent increase wouldn't occur.

The defendant's contradictory statements in court created estoppel, undermining their credibility.

The government's approval of the development plans created an estoppel, preventing them from revoking the building permits.

The seller's representation of the car's condition created an estoppel, holding them accountable for any hidden damages.

The employee's conduct was in direct violation of the company policy, and estoppel was used to justify her termination.

The company's false advertising created estoppel, forcing them to compensate customers.

The seller's misrepresentation about the condition of the car created an estoppel, allowing the buyer to seek damages.

The landlord's acceptance of rent after being informed of the property's defects created an estoppel against him in the tenant's lawsuit.

The tenant's failure to report the maintenance issues in a timely manner led to an estoppel of his right to claim compensation.

The party's acceptance of the terms and conditions created an estoppel, legally binding them to the contract.

The defendant's prior admission of guilt created an estoppel, preventing him from denying his involvement in the crime.

The defendant's inconsistent statements during the trial resulted in an estoppel that weakened his defense.

The athlete's use of performance-enhancing drugs created estoppel, resulting in the revocation of their medals.

The doctor's assurance of a full recovery gave rise to estoppel, causing the patient to forgo seeking a second opinion.

The witness's testimony created an estoppel, requiring them to stand by their statement in court.

The defendant raised the defense of estoppel, arguing that the plaintiff had previously acknowledged the terms of the contract.

The government's estoppel prevented them from changing the policy after citizens had already made substantial investments.

The misleading advertising campaign resulted in estoppel, as customers relied on the false claims and purchased the product.

The student's plagiarism constituted estoppel, leading to disciplinary action by the university.

The defendant cannot argue against the ownership of the property due to the principle of estoppel.

The defendant's claim was dismissed due to the principle of estoppel.

The court applied the doctrine of estoppel to prevent the party from asserting a claim inconsistent with their prior statements.

The employee's actions led to estoppel, as his unauthorized commitments caused financial loss to the company.

The company claimed estoppel, stating that the employee had signed a non-disclosure agreement and could not now reveal confidential information.