A comparative study of the doctrine of estoppel : a civilian contractarian approach in China

Michael Liu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a promisor from breaking a promise and exercising her legal rights where the promise has been relied upon to the detriment of the promisee, and it would be unconscionable for the promisor to revoke or rescind the promise. What is the rationale for the doctrine of estoppel? What approaches are taken in different jurisdictions? This paper examines these questions and analyses the different answers given by common law and civilian lawyers. China’s approach to the doctrine of estoppel is vague and inconsistent. It has shifted from discouragement of unconscionable revocation of promises to permitting cancellation of promises which have already been relied upon. This paper analyses the wrongly applied dominion-based approach to disputes of estoppel in China and recommends a restoration of the old approach to accommodate the need to prevent the unconscionable exercise of a legal right which is made subject to an accord or detrimental reliance. Some literature has been written on the topic either within the common law legal family or within the civil law legal family. There is no cross legal family analysis of doctrinal differences. This paper will reveal and analyse the doctrinal differences and the approaches taken by different jurisdictions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-28
Number of pages28
JournalCanberra Law Review
Volume2010
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

doctrine
common law
China
jurisdiction
civil law
lawyer
restoration
literature

Cite this

@article{6f507c30e0264c189671ba51562eb1a4,
title = "A comparative study of the doctrine of estoppel : a civilian contractarian approach in China",
abstract = "Estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a promisor from breaking a promise and exercising her legal rights where the promise has been relied upon to the detriment of the promisee, and it would be unconscionable for the promisor to revoke or rescind the promise. What is the rationale for the doctrine of estoppel? What approaches are taken in different jurisdictions? This paper examines these questions and analyses the different answers given by common law and civilian lawyers. China’s approach to the doctrine of estoppel is vague and inconsistent. It has shifted from discouragement of unconscionable revocation of promises to permitting cancellation of promises which have already been relied upon. This paper analyses the wrongly applied dominion-based approach to disputes of estoppel in China and recommends a restoration of the old approach to accommodate the need to prevent the unconscionable exercise of a legal right which is made subject to an accord or detrimental reliance. Some literature has been written on the topic either within the common law legal family or within the civil law legal family. There is no cross legal family analysis of doctrinal differences. This paper will reveal and analyse the doctrinal differences and the approaches taken by different jurisdictions.",
author = "Michael Liu",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "2010",
pages = "1--28",
journal = "Canberra Law Review",
issn = "1320-6702",
number = "1",

}

A comparative study of the doctrine of estoppel : a civilian contractarian approach in China. / Liu, Michael.

In: Canberra Law Review, Vol. 2010, No. 1, 2010, p. 1-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of the doctrine of estoppel : a civilian contractarian approach in China

AU - Liu, Michael

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a promisor from breaking a promise and exercising her legal rights where the promise has been relied upon to the detriment of the promisee, and it would be unconscionable for the promisor to revoke or rescind the promise. What is the rationale for the doctrine of estoppel? What approaches are taken in different jurisdictions? This paper examines these questions and analyses the different answers given by common law and civilian lawyers. China’s approach to the doctrine of estoppel is vague and inconsistent. It has shifted from discouragement of unconscionable revocation of promises to permitting cancellation of promises which have already been relied upon. This paper analyses the wrongly applied dominion-based approach to disputes of estoppel in China and recommends a restoration of the old approach to accommodate the need to prevent the unconscionable exercise of a legal right which is made subject to an accord or detrimental reliance. Some literature has been written on the topic either within the common law legal family or within the civil law legal family. There is no cross legal family analysis of doctrinal differences. This paper will reveal and analyse the doctrinal differences and the approaches taken by different jurisdictions.

AB - Estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a promisor from breaking a promise and exercising her legal rights where the promise has been relied upon to the detriment of the promisee, and it would be unconscionable for the promisor to revoke or rescind the promise. What is the rationale for the doctrine of estoppel? What approaches are taken in different jurisdictions? This paper examines these questions and analyses the different answers given by common law and civilian lawyers. China’s approach to the doctrine of estoppel is vague and inconsistent. It has shifted from discouragement of unconscionable revocation of promises to permitting cancellation of promises which have already been relied upon. This paper analyses the wrongly applied dominion-based approach to disputes of estoppel in China and recommends a restoration of the old approach to accommodate the need to prevent the unconscionable exercise of a legal right which is made subject to an accord or detrimental reliance. Some literature has been written on the topic either within the common law legal family or within the civil law legal family. There is no cross legal family analysis of doctrinal differences. This paper will reveal and analyse the doctrinal differences and the approaches taken by different jurisdictions.

M3 - Article

VL - 2010

SP - 1

EP - 28

JO - Canberra Law Review

JF - Canberra Law Review

SN - 1320-6702

IS - 1

ER -