Estoppel was rejected Easts Van Villages v Minister Administering the National Parks and Wildlife [2001] NSWSC 559 because:
A) The plaintiff had not suffered any detriment.
B) The defendant's statement was not unambiguous.
C) Estoppel was not rejected.
D) The parties had equal bargaining power.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q26: Executed consideration is also referred to as
Q27: Estoppel is based on an assumption of
Q28: Only a promise supported by consideration will
Q29: A moral consideration cannot amount to good
Q30: In which of the following cases was
Q32: The plaintiff in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co
Q33: Why is consideration important in respect to
Q34: Explain what is meant by the expression
Q35: Which of the following is NOT an
Q36: When the doctrine of promissory estoppel is
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents