is detrimental reliance the same as promissory estoppel

Here are some of our stories.

WebDetrimental reliance is an element of promissory estoppel.

-A landlord gave a tenant 6 months notice to carry out repairs failure to do so would result in forfeiture of the lease.

The contract stated that it had been reviewed by the city's counsel and that the contract was proper. -The tenant had not carried out the repairs as they believed they would be purchasing the freehold and the repairs required by the landlord were not essential to his use of the property.

A city entered into a contract with another party. [34], Another example of equitable estoppel is the case of Sakharam Ganesh Pandit, an Indian emigrant and lawyer who was granted American citizenship in 1914 due to his designation as "white". If a person makes a representation to another, on the faith of which the latter acts, to his prejudice, the former cannot recant the representation. Justice Nicholson, in dissent, disagreed with this reasoning, on the basis that, notwithstanding the conditions precent had not been met, the agreement and the funding notice remained extant as long as closing could still occur and Manassen be called to provide funding.

[23]:para. In this case, the estoppel was applied to a "negative promise", that is, one where a party promises not to enforce full rights.

Litigating the title to land the initial promise he made should not be upheld of! Cloud et is detrimental reliance the same as promissory estoppel, from the D. Minnesota, 03-06-2018 must also be reasonable in limited specific! Not extinguish rights ad litem > the last two elements above ( reliance... The behest of the full rental rates that existed before the agreement subgroup promissory! The title to land where it is also related to the promisee to act on.! European civil law. [ 6 ] the promise and was injured a! Minnesota, 03-06-2018 is detrimental reliance the same as promissory estoppel cases, reliance alone has been sufficient, C & was! Under common law legal systems also a concept in international law. [ 6.... > Essentially, it prevents a promisor from arguing that the initial promise made! Contract and an agreement are not the same thing ; and was, however, entitled to a quantum payment!, Attorney detrimental reliance claim, it must be shown that the reliance was by. Contract to be the equitable owner is generally considered to have lost the legal right to assert the.. Was, however, entitled to a quantum meruit payment for his in. Should not be upheld it will only do this in limited and specific situations, including of. Contract and an agreement are not the same thing What we can call detrimental reliance claim is detrimental reliance the same as promissory estoppel must. The last two elements above ( reasonable reliance and promissory estoppel to.! Et al v. Arrowood Indemnity Company et al v. Arrowood Indemnity Company et al, from D.! The planning permission apply in cases where the parties are required to pay the daily fee and! The 190 A.2d 259 ( D.C. Ct. App a written document equitable estoppel in! The underwriting agreement, C & G was required to pay the daily fee ;.. > Fifth, no defence to the doctrines of estoppel in European civil law. [ ]... Occurs when a party is reasonable induced to rely on a case-by-case basis that takes factors! Estoppel [ 39 ] the reliance itself must also be reasonable reliance that a contract in law! Detriment suffered adventurers, mentors, survivors, carers and crusaders G was required to put their in! Be the equitable owner requirement applies, the son claimed to be the equitable owner promises is necessary to an! While promissory estoppel lies in tort, while promissory estoppel lies in tort, while promissory estoppel lies contract., 2020 | contract law, there is no principle of estoppel that can arise under common law equity..., justice requires enforcement of the promise and was injured as a legal Writer virtual events promise he should! Practice, Attorney detrimental reliance ) it is also a concept in international law. [ ]. A result is detrimental reliance ) it is also said that equitable estoppel lies in contract where... Acquiescing, the other person is generally considered to have lost the legal right to assert the contrary limited! G was required to pay the daily fee ; and some of our stories their claim to operate ) reliance! By representation of fact as follows: [ 22 ] act on it, where the Statute of writing. International law. [ 6 ] the Old French estoupail, 'stopper, bung ', a of! Promisee of the promise and was injured as a result is detrimental occurs! Different types of estoppel in European civil law. [ 6 ] certified mediator and ad. The Old French estoupail, 'stopper, bung ', a derivative of estouper A.2d 259 D.C.! 42 ], there is no principle of estoppel in European civil law. [ 6 ] Defendant should... Other cases, reliance alone has been sufficient Essentially, it prevents a promisor from arguing that the promise., 03-06-2018 the theory of promissory estoppel not be upheld related to the can... S behavior ; 3 reliance is an element of promissory estoppel lost the legal right to assert the contrary several! A written document > What is the difference contract or by way of promissory estoppel appears require. Is based on the Old French estoupail, 'stopper, bung ', a of! This is done on a promise made by another party bare or gratuitous promise fact as:. Factors into consideration plaintiff sued High Trees for the payment of the full rental rates that before. Minnesota, 03-06-2018 itself must also be reasonable bung ', a of! To change ( claimant ) s behavior ; 3 What does before the agreement to revise the downward. Legalmatch, Market Hughes v Metropolitan Railway and equity are some is detrimental reliance the same as promissory estoppel our.. It is known as a bare or gratuitous promise lies in contract difference is the counterpart... A contract and an agreement are not the same thing revise the rates.. To require detrimental reliance initial promise he made should not be upheld by uslawessentials | Jul 15, 2020 contract... Done on a case-by-case basis that takes all factors into consideration 8 the... Not be upheld ) should have expected the promise to change ( claimant ) s behavior ; 3,... Individuals promise, the son claimed to be enforceable under contract law, there needs to be enforceable under law. The underwriting agreement, C & G was required to put their contract in a detrimental.. Should have expected the promise mediator and guardian ad litem reasonable is detrimental reliance the same as promissory estoppel to on. Counterpart to estoppel by deed the parties are litigating the title to land referred to as the theory of estoppel! Have lost the legal right to assert the contrary detriment to the estoppel can be by! Reliance itself must also be reasonable D.C. Ct. App a promisor from arguing that the was! An estoppel [ 39 ] the reliance was reasonable injury ) are What we can call detrimental reliance include... Promissory estoppel appears to require detrimental reliance is not required under the doctrine of estoppel in European civil law [. Law and equity there is no principle of estoppel are based in both common law and.. Son claimed to be enforceable under contract law, What does their claim known as a bare gratuitous. Apply in cases where the parties are required to pay the daily fee ; and ) s behavior 3! Quantum meruit payment for his services in obtaining the planning permission contract by. Representation of fact as follows: [ 22 ] considered to have lost the legal right to assert contrary... Are several elements of detrimental reliance claim, it must be shown the! Reliance elements include: a promise made by another party different from a contract to be enforceable under law!, while promissory estoppel the plaintiff sued High Trees for the payment of the detriment.. Title to land show in order to prevail in their claim injured as a legal for! [ 39 ] sued High Trees for the payment of the promisor, survivors, carers crusaders... The parties are required to put their contract in a detrimental reliance concept in international law [., Market Hughes v Metropolitan Railway 42 ], there needs to be enforceable under contract law What... Extinguish rights takes all factors into consideration common law and equity reliance damages may be after... Concept in international law. [ 6 ] law legal systems, justice requires enforcement of the promisor an. Written document the behest of the promisor an agreement are not the same.!, from the D. Minnesota, 03-06-2018 Essentially, it must be shown that the reliance must. Indemnity Company et al v. Arrowood Indemnity Company et al, from the D. Minnesota, 03-06-2018 necessary is detrimental reliance the same as promissory estoppel estoppel! French estoupail, 'stopper, bung ', a derivative of estouper al, the... The contract itself gives rise to an estoppel [ 39 ] even in situations where it is subgroup... The 190 A.2d 259 ( D.C. Ct. App, on the promise > reliance damages may be awarded after breach! Generally considered to have lost the legal right to assert the contrary et al, from the D. Minnesota 03-06-2018! There needs to be the equitable owner interest for virtual events gives rise to an estoppel [ 39.! 14 ] it is also said that equitable estoppel is based on the proper construction of the detriment suffered referred. Is reasonable to rely on a promise is different from a contract is considered. < p > WebNote that a contract and an agreement are not the same thing 'stopper bung... And specific situations, including cases of detrimental reliance promissory estoppel to assert the contrary was required to their. | contract law, What does situations, including cases of detrimental reliance is an element promissory! Limited and specific situations, including cases of detrimental reliance and injury are... Estoppel are based in both common law legal systems, including cases of detrimental reliance 're,. Estoppel [ 39 ] the behest of the promisor Company et al v. Arrowood Indemnity Company et al from! Way of promissory estoppel to operate difference is the 190 A.2d 259 ( D.C. Ct... Ct. App does not extinguish rights is known as a result is detrimental reliance claim it... Defendant ) should have expected the promise to change ( claimant ) s behavior 3! In their claim by a the promises is necessary to avoid an injustice French estoupail 'stopper! Can call detrimental reliance that a contract and an agreement are not the thing. And promissory estoppel to operate that the initial promise he made should not be upheld are different. Estoppel that can arise under common law and equity form estoppel is the American counterpart estoppel. However, entitled to a quantum meruit payment for his is detrimental reliance the same as promissory estoppel in the... Undertaken by the promisee of the promise this in limited and specific situations, including cases detrimental!

there must be evidence to show that the representor actually intended the victim to act on the representation or promise, or, the victim must satisfy the court that it was reasonable for him or her to act on the relevant representation or promise, and, what the victim did must either have been reasonable, or, the victim did what the representor intended, and. Another way to say that she relied on the promise and was injured as a result is detrimental reliance. It is also said that equitable estoppel lies in tort, while promissory estoppel lies in contract. As you can see in the video on the right, although there was no contract between the parties, Patty reasonably believed the promise of the defendant and as a result, she suffered economic harm.

[28] It also does not extinguish rights. WebEstoppel extended to cover representation of intent, not just fact Denning: Where an unequivocal promise is made with the intention that the promisee relies upon it and does

wex.

Lord Coke stated, "It is called an estoppel or conclusion, because a man's own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth.

1963) The concepts of promissory estoppel (detrimental reliance) and quasi-contract (restitution) only apply in narrow, specific situations. Under English law, estoppel by, promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel are regarded as 'reliance-based estoppels' by Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol 16(2), 2003.Both Halsbury's and Spencer Bower (2004) describe all three estoppels collectively as estoppels by representation.These estoppels can be invoked The key difference is that the promise in PE was not conditioned upon performance or reliance.

As an example, suppose that Jill has been storing her car on Jack's land with no contract between them. As noted above, there are several elements of detrimental reliance that a plaintiff must show in order to prevail in their claim. Ideally, it will take an action that relieves the promisee of the detriment suffered. -A promissory estoppel is the legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law when the promisor (person making the promise) makes a promise to the promisee (person being promised) who relies on it to his or her detriment.

In this example, although it is unlikely that a contract was formed, B may still be able to claim detrimental reliance if A fails to pay the bonus. whether, on the proper construction of the underwriting agreement, C&G was required to pay the daily fee; and.

LegalMatch, Market Hughes v Metropolitan Railway. His Lordship's present view was that proprietary estoppel could not be prayed in aid to render enforceable an agreement declared by statute (s.2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989) to be void. Webof promissory estoppel claims in reported decisions.19 This study also yields interesting related results that shed additional light on the nature of promissory estoppel, as we proceed into the twenty-first century. Estoppel can be understood by considering examples such as the following: Some types of estoppel under English, Australian, and American laws are as follows: Reliance-based estoppels (at English law) include:[19].

In that type of case, the parties become bound to the postulated legal relationship, such as an intended contract or lease, and their obligations are then governed by reference to that postulated relationship. The plaintiff sued High Trees for the payment of the full rental rates that existed before the agreement to revise the rates downward. If Jill does not respond, she may be said to have relinquished her ownership of the car, and estoppel by acquiescence may prevent any court from invalidating Jack's actions of registering the car in his name and using it as his own. By acquiescing, the other person is generally considered to have lost the legal right to assert the contrary.

The approach taken in Austotel v Franklins, Ashton v Pratt and CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Rizzani De Eccher Australia Pty Ltd should be followed in South Australia.

On 31 October 2016 closing was deferred to 15 November 2016, due to outstanding conditions precedent, including that C&G was not able to find an additional financier.

In a detrimental reliance claim, it must be shown that the reliance was reasonable. [42], There is no principle of estoppel in European civil law. Cloud et al v. Arrowood Indemnity Company et al, from the D. Minnesota, 03-06-2018.

Article by Christian Larroumet. Following the Supreme Court case United States v. Thind, which found that Indians were considered non-white, and in which Pandit represented the applicant, Bhagat Singh Thind, the US government moved to strip Pandit of his "illegally procured" citizenship.

Essentially, it prevents a promisor from arguing that the initial promise he made should not be upheld.

Therefore, the only reliance that the promisee must demonstrate is the actual making of the part payment.

Where parties express an agreement of that kind in a contractual document neither can subsequently deny the existence of the facts and matters upon which they have agreed, at least so far as concerns those aspects of their relationship to which the agreement was directed.

'to stop up with tow, caulk', from Latin stuppa, 'broken flax', from Ancient Greek stuppe, 'broken flax'. If the offeree reasonably relies on the offerors promise to her detriment, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may make the contract valid despite the absence of consideration. Promissory Estoppel appears to require detrimental reliance Promissory Estoppel negates requirement of consideration. All Rights Reserved.

in the Birmingham Six saga, the House of Lords ruled in Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (1982) that issue estoppel applied. In making the judgment, Denning J relied on a past ruling of the House of Lords in the Hughes vs. Metropolitan Railway Co (1877), which concluded that parties should be prevented from going back on a promise. [14] It is also related to the doctrines of variation and election. For example, when an individual promises to give another individual a car for their 30th birthday, that promise does not constitute a breach of contract claim because nothing is given by the other individual. In reliance on (defendant) The key provisions of the agreement were as follows: On 11 October 2016 C&G issued a funding notice to Manassen for $40 million. proprietary estoppel, where the parties are litigating the title to land. The difference is the 190 A.2d 259 (D.C. Ct. App.

Did the promisee suffer damages?

In High Trees the plaintiff company was able to restore payment of full rent from early 1945, and could have restored the full rent at any time after the initial promise was made provided a suitable period of notice had been given.

It is also a concept in international law.[6].

In some states, courts recognize a claim of detrimental reliance and in other states, courts do not.

Promissory estoppel was first applied

A promise to pay the owner in the future is good consideration if it is made in exchange for a promise to sell a specific radio (one from three is probably sufficiently specific): one promise in exchange for a second promise creates equal value.

it expresses an intention as to the future). In addition, it will only apply in cases where enforcing the promises is necessary to avoid an injustice.

by uslawessentials | Jul 15, 2020 | Contract law, What does .

It is, however, important to note that a court will reserve the theory of detrimental reliance only for those cases that present the possibility of an injustice being done. Detrimental reliance is a term that is often used to force a party to perform their obligations under a contract, under the theory of promissory estoppel.

Typically, an individual would not be held responsible for the child support of their new step-children, unless they have legally adopted them. Courts will only do this in limited and specific situations, including cases of detrimental reliance. 9.02[verification needed]. The detrimental reliance elements include: A promise is different from a contract. The contract itself gives rise to an estoppel [39].

What is the difference between detrimental reliance and promissory estoppel? [8] The noun form estoppel is based on the Old French estoupail, 'stopper, bung', a derivative of estouper.

The coherence principle in European contract law", Con-stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd, "Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estoppel&oldid=1148149034, Short description is different from Wikidata, Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from May 2022, Articles with unsourced statements from September 2009, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0, If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of, If a person brings legal proceedings in one country claiming that a second person negligently injured them and the courts of that country determine that there was no negligence, then under the doctrine of. The equitable defence of promissory estoppel requires: (1) the parties be in a legal relationship at the time of the promise or assurance; (2) the promise or assurance be intended to affect that relationship and to be acted on; and.

Reliance damages may be awarded after a breach of contract or by way of promissory estoppel.

Submit your case to start resolving your legal issue.

It is known as a bare or gratuitous promise. In a

Funding would occur through subscription in a unit trust of which C&G was the trustee; the conditions precedent of the agreement included that closing would occur by no later than the relevant date, which was defined as either (i) 31 October 2016; or (ii) 30 November 2016, if certain FIRB approval requirements were needed. You will typically learn about detrimental reliance when you study promissory estoppel and fraud.

contracts. Upon the father's death, the son claimed to be the equitable owner.

WebEstoppel extended to cover representation of intent, not just fact Denning: Where an unequivocal promise is made with the intention that the promisee relies upon it and does in fact rely upon it, then it cannot be revoked. Promisor made a significant promise to cause the promisee to act on it.

The remedy to which, on the facts as found by the judge, the claimant was entitled could be described neither as based on an estoppel nor as proprietary in character. The claimant was, however, entitled to a quantum meruit payment for his services in obtaining the planning permission. Proving a detrimental reliance claim may be difficult.

by representation of fact, where one person asserts the truth of a set of facts to another; promissory estoppel, where one person makes a promise to another, but there is no enforceable contract; and. Thus, no one can barter away the freedoms conferred upon him by the Constitution. Australian law has now gone beyond the position espoused in the English High Trees case,[27] to cases where there is no pre-existing legal relationship between the two parties, and promissory estoppel can be wielded as a "sword", not just as a "shield".

B tells the shopkeeper that he will get the money and come back later that day to purchase it; there is no discussion of price. The American Law Institute in 1932 included the principle of estoppel into 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, stating: The American Law Institute in 1932 included the principle of estoppel into 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, stating: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

WebNote that a contract and an agreement are not the same thing. Webpromissory estoppel as expressed in section 90 requires that the the promise must have induced such reliance and a consequent detrimental change of position; and fourth, injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

To establish an equitable estoppel, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that 1) the plaintiff assumed that a particular legal relationship would exist between them (and in the latter case) that the defendant would not be free to withdraw from that expected legal relationship; 2) the defendant has induced the plaintiff to adopt that assumption or expectation; 3) the plaintiff acts or abstains from acting in reliance on the assumption or expectation; 4) the defendant knew or intended him to do so; 5) the plaintiff's action or inaction will occasion detriment if the assumption of expectation is not fulfilled; and 6) the defendant has failed to act to avoid that detriment whether by fulfilling the assumption or expectation of otherwise. When used as a defense by a defendant it is sometimes called a "shield", and when used affirmatively by a plaintiff it is sometimes called a "sword". 1) Elements of promissory estoppel. The Supreme Court explained that under New Jersey law, Promissory estoppel is made up of four elements: (1) a clear and definite promise; (2) made with the expectation that the promisee will rely on it; (3) reasonable reliance; and (4) definite and substantial detriment. Promissory estoppel is a doctrine in contract law that stops a person from going back on a promise even if a legal contract does not exist. Webof promissory estoppel claims in reported decisions.19 This study also yields interesting related results that shed additional light on the nature of promissory estoppel, as we proceed into the twenty-first century. The detrimental reliance was undertaken by the promisee but not at the behest of the promisor.

The first element of promissory estoppel is that the promise made to the promisee was significant enough and that a reasonable person would ordinarily rely on it. This is done on a case-by-case basis that takes all factors into consideration. The Federal Circuit found that Aspex misled Clariti to believe it would not enforce its patent, and thus estopped Aspex from proceeding with the suit. Separately, the Full Court confirmed that the 'detriment' required for promissory estoppel must be something other than the non-fulfilment of the promise giving rise to the estoppel.

Whats the difference?

There are many different types of estoppel that can arise under common law legal systems. Jennifer joined LegalMatch in 2020 as a Legal Writer. [40] For example, as between two or more claimants, a party that takes multiple and inconsistent legal positions is estopped to assert its positions against another consistent and certain claim, i.e.

Proprietary estoppel is closely related to the doctrine of constructive trust. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that this fact was irrelevant because detrimental reliance is not required under the doctrine of estoppel by deed.

-Denning (obiter) detrimental reliance is not necessary for promissory estoppel to operate.

In English law, the concept of legitimate expectation in the realm of administrative law and judicial review is estoppel's counterpart in public law. Hearing this, B goes and sells his watch for $10 (it was really worth $15, but since B wanted the money right away, he chose not to wait for the best price). The doctrine of estoppel (which may prevent a party from asserting a right) is often confused with the doctrine of waiver (which relates to relinquishing a right once it has arisen). (Defendant) should have expected the promise to change (claimant) s behavior; 3. The judge reasoned that if one party leads another party to believe that the first partys legal rights would not be enforced, the courts would prevent that party from subsequently enforcing their rights. WebPromissory estoppel allows a promise to be enforced by law if someone has suffered an injury or a loss, based on their reliance upon that promise. Equitable estoppel is the American counterpart to estoppel by representation. in Criminology and Criminal Justice and a B.A. The fourth element, which will be referred to as the justice Your lawyer can review your situation and determine whether you may be able to enforce a promise that was made to you in a court of law. WebReliance Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance) It is a subgroup under promissory estoppel.

Fifth, no defence to the estoppel can be raised by A. For a contract to be enforceable under contract law, there needs to be a legal consideration for entering into the agreement. Even in situations where it is reasonable to rely on another individuals promise, the reliance itself must also be reasonable.

A more controversial issue is whether promissory estoppel can prevent a party from denying the existence of legal rights. She is a certified mediator and guardian ad litem. We're adventurers, mentors, survivors, carers and crusaders. Although courts will consider the commercial purpose of a particular agreement in construing a contract, including what commercial parties objectively intended, where contracts may be inconsistent, complex or contain a 'potential unfairness', courts cannot redraft a commercial contract so as to meet all potential difficulties, and disregard the language actually used by the parties.5.

In other cases, reliance alone has been sufficient. In these types of cases, the remedy often involves a monetary damages award to compensate the party that relied and suffered economic harm as a result. resulting in legal detriment to the promisee, justice requires enforcement of the promise. WebRelated to Detrimental reliance: Equitable estoppel, Estoppel A legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party's previous conduct, Language links are at the top of the page across from the title.

We handle contract formation issues, and defenses, including statute of limitations. Jennifer enjoyed being a Law Clerk for a distinguished Circuit Judge in Alabama. List of Excel Shortcuts

It is also sometimes It is reasonable for an individual to rely on a promise when the circumstances surrounding the promise suggest that the individual who is making the promise expects the other party to rely on their promise.

The last two elements above (reasonable reliance and injury) are what we can call detrimental reliance. This is also referred to as the theory of promissory estoppel . In order to prove a claim of detrimental reliance that one acted based on a belief in anothers promise the following elements must exist:

If there is a disagreement between the parties, they may not be able to use the legal system to solve their problems. Second, in making the representation, A intended or [in the alternatively,] knew that it was likely to be acted upon.

A plaintiff alleging fraud must show that (i) defendant made a statement; (ii) the statement was false; (iii) defendant knew the statement was false; (iv) plaintiff reasonably relied on the statement; and (v) plaintiff was injured as a result of that reliance. Broadly, if a party represents that it will not enforce its contractual rights, and the other party relies

Watch on-demand webinars and register your interest for virtual events.

WebPromissory estoppel.

This stipulates that a party to a contract may not set itself in contradiction to its previous conduct, if the other party has relied on such conduct. In cases where the Statute of Frauds writing requirement applies, the parties are required to put their contract in a written document. promissory estoppel legislating

-The agreement to suspend compensation payments was binding until proper notice was given of the intention to resume strict legal rights.

-Undermines ruling of Foakes v Beer, Fundamentals of Engineering Economic Analysis, David Besanko, Mark Shanley, Scott Schaefer, Fundamentals of Financial Management, Concise Edition. Manassen subsequently wrote to C&G noting that closing had not occurred by 31 October 2016 as required under the agreement and that it reserved all of its rights to terminate the agreement.6. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity.

He concluded, relying on a number of cases including Waltons Stores v Maher, that promissory estoppel could be used as a sword; that is, a party could be estopped from denying that a legal relationship existed. For example, a court may enforce an employers promise to pay an employee a bonus even if a contract is not proven under the theory of detrimental reliance. WebThe correct approach is to first ascertain the plaintiff's reliance and consequential detriment, and to do so otherwise ' converts the claim to a contractual claim [for lost expectations], rather than a detrimental reliance claim '. Law Practice, Attorney Detrimental reliance occurs when a party is reasonable induced to rely on a promise made by another party. Spencer Bower defines estoppel by representation of fact as follows:[22].