| 单词 | Estoppel by representation |
| 释义 | 已作陳述不容反悔原則 The doctrine established in both equity and common law that a person who made the representation of an existing fact is not allowed to deny its truth: Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong, Vol 11, Estoppel [170.087]. Under this doctrine, detriment of the kind required for this purpose had its origin in equity which is now universally accepted as sub-dividing again into proprietary estoppel and promissory estoppel. The doctrine is not distinguishable in principle from what was sometimes spoken of in courts of equity as equitable estoppel. The only distinction seems to be that in equity it was apparently applied only to cases where a person had entered into a contract on the faith of the representations made, which might have been made either by a party to the contract or by a third person: Bestkey Development Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Fine Mansion & Anor [1999] 3 HKC 275 (CA); Pacific South (Asia) Holdings Ltd v Million Unity International Ltd [1997] 3 HKC 440 (CA); Ng Kam Ha v Vincent Sina Traders (HK) Ltd [1987] 2 HKC 517 (HC). Representations on law could not found an estoppel: Kai Nam (A Firm) v Ma Kam Chan [1946-1972] HKC 89 (PC). See also Estoppel, Estoppel by deed, Promissory estoppel; Representation. 根據此等在衡平法及普通法確立的原則，陳述某項現有事實的人不可否認該項事實的真實性：Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong, 第11冊，不容反悔，第[170.087]段。在此等原則下，為此等目的而所需的的損害類別源於衡平法，現時普遍接納分類為所有權不容反悔原則及已作承諾不容反悔原則。在原則上，已作陳述不容反悔原則與衡平法法院有時所說的衡平法不容反悔原則不可分辨。兩者唯一的分別看來是，如一人是在相信所作出的陳述（可由締約一方或第三方作出）的情況下締約的，則衡平法僅會在此等明顯的情況才會適用：Bestkey Development Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Fine Mansion & Anor [1999] 3 HKC 275 （上訴法庭）；Pacific South (Asia) Holdings Ltd v Million Unity International Ltd [1997] 3 HKC 440 （上訴法庭）；Ng Kam Ha v Vincent Sina Traders (HK) Ltd [1987] 2 HKC 517（高等法院）。不能基於法律陳述而提出不容反悔原則：Kai Nam (A Firm) v Ma Kam Chan [1946-1972] HKC 89 （樞密院）。另見 Estoppel, Estoppel by deed, Promissory estoppel; Representation。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。