Dear all,

I wonder if anyone is aware of any cases where estoppel by
acquiescence was successfully relied on as a bar to an action for
inducement to breach a contract?

I realize that many of the elements that go to prove estoppel would
also be relevant to the state of mind of the alleged wrongdoer.

Nevertheless, consider the following example:

A has a contract with B. From 1 June, A knows that C, a competitor
has asked B to sell to C from 1 September. The inevitable result of
such an arrangement between B and C is that B must breach A's
contract. A knows that C is either aware of A's contract with B or
reckless as to its terms and that C knows that its arrangement with B
will breach A's contract. C knows that A has been made aware of its
impending contract with B by B and A knows that C knows.

Over the next several months, A tries to persuade B not to move. C is
aware of A's efforts but is not aware of any reference to A's contract
with B by A in these discussions.

A never contacts C to point out its contractual rights. After C is
irrevocably committed to B on 1 September, A institutes proceedings.

Could it be argued that A's actions lead C to believe that A would not
enforce its contract or that it was otherwise unconscionable for A now
to rely on its legal rights?

Suppose that had A notified C formally that it would insist on its
contractual rights with B before 1 September, C would have desisted?
Would A's failure to do so be the proximate cause of its loss?

With apologies for the involved example, thoughts welcome!

Kind regards

Ger