Same applies if the Representor acted negligently to his detriment The

Same applies if the representor acted negligently to

This preview shows page 6 - 11 out of 17 pages.

Same applies if the Representor acted negligently to his detriment. The Representation on which the plea for estoppel is based must be fact , which fact exists or has existed . Thus simply put representation of an existing fact . This requirement entails that a statement of future intentions cannot found a plea of estoppel and a statement of one’s opinion on a matter, including a question of law, cannot sustain such a plea for estoppel.
Image of page 6
4. Prejudice / reliance led to representee’s detriment De Wet: The prejudice on which an estoppel is founded must be patrimonial . He also speaks of actual and temporal damage (some loss of money or money’s worth) some tangible detriment, immediate or contingent, quantifiable and able to assess. DETERMINATION OF PREJUDICE: The fact that the person who raises an estoppel must show that, in relying on a representation made to him, he acted to his prejudice, suggests that he must show that he had already suffered prejudice when he raised the plea = this is wrong! Estoppel is aimed at PREVENTING an injustice being done , and as long as the representor does not deny the representation on the faith of which the representee acted = the representee cannot complain and estoppel cannot apply (Estoppel only applies if the truth is denied) Prejudice may therefore arise when the representor does seek to resile from the misrepresentation. Estoppel will therefore be aimed to prevent the prejudice the representee will suffer, should the representor not be prevented from resiling/denying his misrepresentation.
Image of page 7
Test for prejudice The test for prejudice is a Comparative test. Prejudice is determined by comparing the position in which a person actually finds him/herself in the position in which he will probably be if the representor is allowed to resile from his representation. REASONABLE STEPS: The representee must together with the element of prejudice also prove that he took reasonable steps to avoid the prejudice of which he complains. Heyman NO & Napier v Rounthwaite: In considering whether a representee acted reasonably in order to avoid suffering prejudice, the court has regard to all circumstances of the case.
Image of page 8
3. Causation 1. The Pure Test for causation: When the Representee pleads estoppel he must show that a representation was made to him and that he, believing the representation to be true acted thereon to his prejudice The Representee must therefore establish a real or factual causal connection/link between the representation + his reliance on it/action. If the alleged representation is denied or withdrawn by the Representor, before it is acted on by the Representee = Estoppel will not be applicable . If the denial or withdrawal came to the attention of the Representee before he acted on the representation , any subsequent change in his position/prejudice cannot be heard to have been the result of the alleged representation Estoppel not applicable .
Image of page 9
3. Causation (continued) The proximate-cause test for causation: Discussions in SA cases regarding the approach to be
Image of page 10
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 17 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture