Texas Causes of Action & Affirmative Defenses

Texas Causes of Action & Affirmative Defenses

Need a little legal ammo? Search for caselaw on legal theories and defenses here:

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Quasi-estoppel differentiated from equitable estoppel doctrine

The doctrine of quasi-estoppel precludes a party from asserting, to another’s disadvantage, a right inconsistent with a position previously taken by a party. Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857, 864 (Tex. 2000); Eckland Consultants, Inc. v. Ryder, Stillwell, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 80, 87 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
The doctrine applies when it would be unconscionable to allow a party to maintain a position inconsistent with one in which it had acquiesced, or from which it had accepted a benefit. Lopez, 22 S.W.3d at 864; Eckland Consultants, Inc., 176 S.W.3d at 87. “Thus, quasi-estoppel forbids a party from accepting the benefits of a transaction and then subsequently taking an inconsistent position to avoid corresponding obligations or effects.” Eckland Consultants, Inc., 176 S.W.3d at 87.
“Unlike equitable estoppel, quasi-estoppel requires no showing of misrepresentation or detrimental reliance.” Id.
SOURCE: SAN ANTONIO COURT OF APPEALS - 04-11-00209-CV – 11/23/11 

No comments:

Post a Comment