Elephant in the room

[Paul.]

Re: Elephant in the room

yeah i never could understand those who try to argue that by not saying something you could be bound contractually, as acceptance must be communicated and if you are silent how can you communicate?

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

I know the question was addressed to Paul, anyway.

estoppel by 'acquiescence' is when a tacit or implied agreement is made and the aggrieved party makes the first party stick to the implied promise.

The difference as far as contractual issues is concerned is that it will not override the stipulation of a formal contractual agreement, a tacit agreement cannot be used to argue against a contractual obligation.

Sadly

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Elephant in the room

Acquiescence is a legal term or doctrine that describes the situation in which a person knowingly stands by an infringement of their rights without raising an objection, allowing the other person to continue or proceed to act, under the impression that those rights will not be asserted, or that those rights belong to the infringed person.
The legal consequence of acquiescence is that the person whose rights were infringed, but who did not object cannot then make a claim against the person who infringed said rights, nor succeed in an injunction to stop further infringement of the rights. Thus, that person is said to have tacitly accepted or agreed to the infringement of their rights.
The doctrine of acquiescence is not generally expressed in statute. It is a common-law principle that is found in the decisions of the courts on various matters.
The two main doctrines of acquiescence are estoppel by acquiescence, and acquiescence by silence. The common-law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is similar to estoppel by laches. It applies where one person gives legal notice of a fact or claim to another person, and that person fails to challenge that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it.
Acquiescence by silence occurs in the context of claims in tort, whereby a person’s silence, or failure to protest or take any action, in the face of a tortious act, has the consequence that they lose their rights to claim for any loss or damage.


The Law is wonderful isn't it...I can see why my daughter is studying it...so many interesting 'bits', so much archaic terminology..

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Elephant in the room

if youre caught by promissory estoppal, then you could say, while i cannot go back on what has already happened i will no longer be bound by that promise moving forward. that would be enough to overcome it

thanks Paul...and that applies also to an estoppel by 'acquiescence', or is that the same thing ?

[Paul.]

Re: Elephant in the room

You mean by defaulting , or is it simply a case of writing to say 'no thanks' ?

if youre caught by promissory estoppal, then you could say, while i cannot go back on what has already happened i will no longer be bound by that promise moving forward. that would be enough to overcome it

[SXGuy]

Re: Elephant in the room

brought to an end by "notice" i.e written notice that the agreement has ended.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Elephant in the room

but that promise to do or not to do something can of course be brought to an end by notice that the party does not intend to be bound any longer moving forward

You mean by defaulting , or is it simply a case of writing to say 'no thanks' ?

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Elephant in the room

Sorry should clarify for you, moving sideways or diagonally in time is not an option.

So what is wrong with "in future", "from now on" or "henceforth", all of which are perfectly good English and not an idiom created by a potato-headed, colonial 'gent'?

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

If Dx is with CAB god help all those in west Cheshire (well he claims to be from Chester but then says he's Welsh..says it all lol)

How do you get away without being banned. Everytime I correct dick or the want to be soldier I get swiftly booted.

I wanted to correct him on his english earlier (which would be ironic with my spelling) cos he didn't know his infers and his implies

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Elephant in the room

DX = did he not mention he is with Citizen Advice B? I just had to mention to a poster about SAR time limits, and I notice somebody else has as well whereby the time limit for a SAR has been mis stated.?

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

Cloggy you are bad.
Now let's put this to bed and maybe going forward we should think outside the box to find a new way to streamline the operation so that at the end of the day we are all singing from the same hymn sheet

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Sorry should clarify for you, moving sideways or diagonally in time is not an option.

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Yes, but "going forwards" apparently precludes sideways or diagonal movement.

I think the reference was temporal rather than geographic.

[greymatter]

Re: Elephant in the room

A crab

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Elephant in the room

I think it qualifies the statement, ie not in retrospect.

Yes, but "going forwards" apparently precludes sideways or diagonal movement.