equitable estoppel doctrine in Delaware

2022Super. 2000) (“[E]quitable defenses generally, a long time ago, worked their way into purely legal cases.” ). 97 Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that fact repeatedly.45 Authoritative treatises acknowledge it as well.46 45 See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 684 (2014) (describing estoppel as “a defense long recognized as available in actions at law”); Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 327 (1894) (noting that “an estoppel in pais was an available defense to an action at law”); Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68, 78 (1880) (“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is

2022The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that fact repeatedly.45 Authoritative treatises acknowledge it as well.46 45 See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 684 (2014) (describing estoppel as “a defense long recognized as available in actions at law”); Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 327 (1894) (noting that “an estoppel in pais was an available defense to an action at law”); Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68, 78 (1880) (“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is, as its name indicates, chiefly, if not wholly, derived from courts of equity, and as these courts apply it

2022Super. 2000) (“[E]quitable defenses generally, a long time ago, worked their way into purely legal cases.” ). 97 Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that fact repeatedly.45 Authoritative treatises acknowledge it as well.46 45 See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 684 (2014) (describing estoppel as “a defense long recognized as available in actions at law”); Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 327 (1894) (noting that “an estoppel in pais was an available defense to an action at law”); Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68, 78 (1880) (“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is

2022The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that fact repeatedly.45 Authoritative treatises acknowledge it as well.46 45 See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 684 (2014) (describing estoppel as “a defense long recognized as available in actions at law”); Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 327 (1894) (noting that “an estoppel in pais was an available defense to an action at law”); Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68, 78 (1880) (“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is, as its name indicates, chiefly, if not wholly, derived from courts of equity, and as these courts apply it

2022Super. 2000) (“[E]quitable defenses generally, a long time ago, worked their way into purely legal cases.” ). 97 Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that fact repeatedly.45 Authoritative treatises acknowledge it as well.46 45 See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 684 (2014) (describing estoppel as “a defense long recognized as available in actions at law”); Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 327 (1894) (noting that “an estoppel in pais was an available defense to an action at law”); Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68, 78 (1880) (“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is

2022The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that fact repeatedly.45 Authoritative treatises acknowledge it as well.46 45 See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 684 (2014) (describing estoppel as “a defense long recognized as available in actions at law”); Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 327 (1894) (noting that “an estoppel in pais was an available defense to an action at law”); Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68, 78 (1880) (“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is, as its name indicates, chiefly, if not wholly, derived from courts of equity, and as these courts apply it

2022Super. 2000) (“[E]quitable defenses generally, a long time ago, worked their way into purely legal cases.” ). 97 Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that fact repeatedly.45 Authoritative treatises acknowledge it as well.46 45 See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 684 (2014) (describing estoppel as “a defense long recognized as available in actions at law”); Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 327 (1894) (noting that “an estoppel in pais was an available defense to an action at law”); Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68, 78 (1880) (“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is

2022The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that fact repeatedly.45 Authoritative treatises acknowledge it as well.46 45 See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 684 (2014) (describing estoppel as “a defense long recognized as available in actions at law”); Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 327 (1894) (noting that “an estoppel in pais was an available defense to an action at law”); Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68, 78 (1880) (“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is, as its name indicates, chiefly, if not wholly, derived from courts of equity, and as these courts apply it

1966See Pierce v. Hall, 223 Or. 563 , 355 P.2d 259 ; 119 A.L.R. 515 .

1966See Pierce v. Hall, 223 Or. 563 , 355 P.2d 259 ; 119 A.L.R. 515 .

2021Feb. 1, 2002) (“An equitable estoppel claim arises where (i) a party that is acting in good faith (ii) relies on affirmative acts or representations of the government (iii) by making substantial improvements to property, and (iv) it would be inequitable to allow the government to impair or destroy the rights the property owner has thereby acquired.” (citing Miller, 521 A.2d at 645–46, then citing Disabatino, 781 A.2d at 702 , and then citing Motiva Enters.

2019In Eastern Shore Environmental v. Kent County Department of Planning,111 the Court held that the $500,000 that Eastern Shore spent to upgrade its waste facility in reliance on county promises was sufficient for an equitable estoppel claim at the motion to dismiss stage.112 In Wilmington Materials, Inc. v. Town of Middletown, 113 the Court held that $88,000 (in 1988) was sufficient to show “substantial reliance” given the small size of the developer.114 In Dragon Run 108 Acierno, 2000 WL 718346 , at *9 (quoting Miller v. Bd. of Adjustment of Town of Dewey Beach, 521 A.2d 642, 645-56 (Del.

2025Ins., 209 A.2d 902, 903-04 (Del. 1965).

2025Bd. of Educ., 171 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Ky. 2005).

2025Mkts., LLC v. Jervis, 129 A.3d 816, 876 (Del. 2015) (explaining that “whether to apply the doctrine of unclean hands” is a matter of the court’s discretion) (citation omitted). 196 Brody’s Opening Br. 51-52. 37 that the Buyers breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by “threatening the Audit with malpractice and then refusing to sign” a revised engagement letter.197 Brody also insists that the Buyers are in default on the Note, which is “immediately due and payable.”198 In response to these claims, the Buyers advance an equitable estoppel defense.

2023Co., 307 A.2d 806, 809 (Del.

2023In a dispute about enforcement of a bargained-for contract right, equitable estoppel is not the proper remedy.”); Genencor Int’l, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 766 A.2d 8, 12 (Del. 2000) (observing that the doctrine of equitable estoppel “is not applicable to cases in which the alleged promise is supported by consideration”); see also Brandywine Shoppe, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas.

2023Railcar Serv., Inc. v. City of Wilm., 630 A.2d 629, 633 (Del. 1993) (“Equally settled is the principle that a third person, who is, in effect, a stranger to the contract, may enforce a contractual promise in his own right and name if the contract has been made for his benefit.” (citing Wilm.