Or as is known for its boring name: the doctrine of estoppel.
How are we? I took two weeks and installed in the capital and the truth is that everything is a fable, almost certain it's because I have not yet made serious study (in plan 12 hours a day). Study hours apart, the truth is that here there is nothing wrong, people are not as crazy as it may seem at first ("100 people locked up 10 hours a day studying? This can not end well ...") and inviting place to study, since there is hardly anyone in the common areas except for lunch and dinner. All very well, well.
On the other hand, before we get to the topic, the blog headlines (or bronx): 1) In two weeks is a year, which will celebrate in style, and 2) The month of November there were 701 other visitors! (Great video of the boy, vid. 2:20 minutes.) Burr, right? Of these 80% are visits between 0 and 30 seconds. You have to see how fast you read today's youth ...
eeen end, we will as we go. Today I bring a rights issue, pure and simple: the doctrine of estoppel . Why? Because out in item 2 that I studied last week and I'm reviewing it because it is a subject that is not more known. It's a bit like the retroactivity or level of care : sale everywhere today, tomorrow there. Come, now without further ado: What's all this estoppel? Do you eat? If it gets wet it evil?
This concept of Anglo-Saxon origin to saying that a person is bound by the acts performed, including the unilateral . That is, I force myself not only through the contracts, but also my own actions may also have binding effects. The maximum Catalan "Ara ja ho has dit" plasma quite well the spirit of this rule. However, the act in question must meet certain requirements:
1. Advertising.
2. Will generate legal effects (which does not occur with the Conas, for example)
3. Not depend on the actions of others.
The importance of these three elements derived from the foundation of this institution, the good faith and that others can trust that I'm going to act the way they say. What a mess, right? Better get a sample that has little to do with law, but to help clarify the issue.
Imagine that I tell someone: "I will arrive at 6 in the Latin (or Zurich). See you there." This is an example of a unilateral act and as you will see more or less meets the three criteria: 1) The other person knows the act (I told you) 2) The declaration is a commitment (reach 6), although is not strictly legal, and 3) is independent of what the other says. To sum up, I am committed and I have to comply with what I said . Why do I have to meet? For because good faith tells us that in principle if I commit to something is to accomplish and not to screw the other life and because the other must be confident that I will do what I said . Can you imagine a world in which we were to assume that everyone is going to fuck ("bad faith")? We would not go anywhere ...
Last two statements: 1. With regard to international law estoppel doctrine is especially relevant in the recognition of states (there's that). 2. Not to be confused with the Doppler effect .
On the other hand, before we get to the topic, the blog headlines (or bronx): 1) In two weeks is a year, which will celebrate in style, and 2) The month of November there were 701 other visitors! (Great video of the boy, vid. 2:20 minutes.) Burr, right? Of these 80% are visits between 0 and 30 seconds. You have to see how fast you read today's youth ...
eeen end, we will as we go. Today I bring a rights issue, pure and simple: the doctrine of estoppel . Why? Because out in item 2 that I studied last week and I'm reviewing it because it is a subject that is not more known. It's a bit like the retroactivity or level of care : sale everywhere today, tomorrow there. Come, now without further ado: What's all this estoppel? Do you eat? If it gets wet it evil?
This concept of Anglo-Saxon origin to saying that a person is bound by the acts performed, including the unilateral . That is, I force myself not only through the contracts, but also my own actions may also have binding effects. The maximum Catalan "Ara ja ho has dit" plasma quite well the spirit of this rule. However, the act in question must meet certain requirements:
1. Advertising.
2. Will generate legal effects (which does not occur with the Conas, for example)
3. Not depend on the actions of others.
The importance of these three elements derived from the foundation of this institution, the good faith and that others can trust that I'm going to act the way they say. What a mess, right? Better get a sample that has little to do with law, but to help clarify the issue.
Imagine that I tell someone: "I will arrive at 6 in the Latin (or Zurich). See you there." This is an example of a unilateral act and as you will see more or less meets the three criteria: 1) The other person knows the act (I told you) 2) The declaration is a commitment (reach 6), although is not strictly legal, and 3) is independent of what the other says. To sum up, I am committed and I have to comply with what I said . Why do I have to meet? For because good faith tells us that in principle if I commit to something is to accomplish and not to screw the other life and because the other must be confident that I will do what I said . Can you imagine a world in which we were to assume that everyone is going to fuck ("bad faith")? We would not go anywhere ...
Last two statements: 1. With regard to international law estoppel doctrine is especially relevant in the recognition of states (there's that). 2. Not to be confused with the Doppler effect .
That said, I go to school.
Talu
! PD
I may have invented the requirements and, in fact, what is the estoppel. Any correction is welcome.
0 comments:
Post a Comment