Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:24:54 -0400

From: John Swan

Subject: Estoppel Query

Standard cases involving multi-party insuring agreements seem to raise the fact situation you have described. See, e.g., Commonwealth Construction Co. v. Imperial Oil Ltd., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 317, 69 D.L.R. (3d) 558, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 219, Trident General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. McNeice Bros. Pty. Ltd. (1988), 165 C.L.R. 107, 80 A.L.R. 574, and Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108, 176 D.L.R. (4th) 257, [1999] 9 W.W.R. 380, 67 B.C.L.R. (3d) 213, 50 B.L.R. (2d) 169, [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 199. These cases are simply cases where the courts refused to apply the third party beneficiary rule where making anyone of the related agreements unenforceable would have caused commercial chaos.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Neyers
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: ODG: Estoppel Query

Dear Colleagues:

I was wondering if any of you knew a good article or academic/judicial discussion on estoppel in a three party situation. The situation I have in mind is where three (or more) parties structure their bilateral affairs in a certain way on the basis of an understanding and one or more of the parties attempts to resile from that understanding to the detriment of one of the parties.

Does such an estoppel have a recognized name (i.e. is that a conventional estoppel situation)?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>