Doctrine of Estoppel in Australian Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Doctrine of Estoppel in Australian Law - Essay Example But then, if the plaintiff has said or done something that induced/caused the defendant to change his or her behavior and that reliance was reasonable, the courts hold the discretion to deny the remedy to the plaintiff. Estoppel is not a remedy "at law" in the jurisdictions of common law, but is based on the principles of equity. In most cases, it is only a defense used by the defendant to prevent the plaintiff from enforcing established legal rights, or from relying on a set of facts that would give rise to enforceable rights this can be in the form of words uttered or actions performed, if that enforcement or reliance can be seen as unfair to the defendant. Because its effect is to defeat generally enforceable legal rights, the scope of the remedy is often very limited. In the case of a debt, for instance, an estoppel could be claimed if the creditor tells the debtor that he has been forgiven of his debt, but then there has not been a formal termination of the debt. If later the creditor demands that the debt should be paid back, but the debtor, reling on the earlier information that the debt has been forgiven him, has innocently spent the money on something else, the creditor may be estopped from relying on the usual contractual right to repayment because it would be unfair to allow the creditor to change his mind. Estoppel provides a way in which promises can be legally binding, even when there is no consideration. Estoppel is reliance based and, and you should note that reliance was never sufficient to constitute a consideration. In strict terms, Estoppel has nothing to do with contract, which means it is not part of contract law in the traditional sense. It is something that exists as a separate body of law - just like negligence or trespass. Its importance is that it has impacted on the law of contract by making it possible to argue for legal obligations which are contract-like but which do not satisfy the traditional requirements of consideration. Estoppel has therefore had an important impact on contract, but, it should be kept in mind that estoppel is a general doctrine which operates in all sorts of other areas as well. A lot of learned commentators of great influence have argued that there should be, if there never was, but one doctrine of estoppel by conduct in Australian law. Their argument captured by Mr. Spence in his book as the desirability of the unification of common law and equitable estoppel, and he advocates for a model of unification in which equitable estoppel would be extended to cover assumptions of fact, thereby swallowing up the common law doctrine. This method of unification was advocated and explained by MasonCJ in his judgment in CommonwealthvVerwayen 2. Their major worry in relation to equitable estoppel is whether it is fundamentally concerned with preventing unconscionable conduct or with protecting reasonable reliance. They are wont to ask if equitable estoppel is essentially concerned with the representor's misconduct, or with the representee's plight This is basically what the learned authors, Meagher, Heydon and Leeming, mean when they said in their book3 that "there are influential proponents of the view that there now should be, if there has not always been, but one doctrine of estoppel by conduct". What it seems to me that they are saying is that there should

Privacy and technology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Privacy and technology - Essay Example According to If Looks could kill by The Economist and Trading Liberty for Illusions by Wendy Kaminer, the world today tends to prefer the inconsequential over the important aspects in their lives. For instance, people now judge based on race after the 9/11 attacks, airport security has become increasingly intrusive, and technological advances have eroded whatever little privacy people had left. Both Wendy Kaminer in Trading Liberty for Illusions and The Economist in If Looks Could Kill refer to terrorism as one of the main reasons why the privacy of ordinary American citizens is being invaded. The main reason for Kaminer’s article is to opine that the government hides behind the threat of terrorism to excuse their infringement on their citizen’s rights. She uses the rhetorical technique of pathos to appeal to the readers’ emotions. She starts her article by saying, â€Å"Only a fool with no sense of history would have been sanguine about the prospects for civil liberties after the September 11 attack† (Kaminer, 2004). This ensures the reader knows she is against the invasion of privacy on the pretext of terror threats. She contends that the Bush Administration held over a thousand non-native Americans after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, although most of them were not connected to the events of the day (Kaminer, 2004). Kaminer concludes that the fear of the government and subsequent attacks make citizens give their liberty up because they have been fed on security illusions. On the other hand, The Economist’s main reason for writing their article is to opine that the threat of terrorism and crime has pushed technology to higher heights. They use the rhetorical device of logos to contend that technology talking about the ability of new technology to use micro-expressions rather than the old profiling technique. This technology will remove the risk of racial profiling by the police because all it detects are expressions made by an individual, rather than the color of their skin (The Economist, 2008). In addition, The Economist also contends that the technology will be important in cases where packages are left by suspicious individuals and will alert security officials on the potential danger. The Economist talks about other technologies aimed at anti-terrorism that measures breathing and heart rate, perspiration rates, temperature of one’s skin, and the flow of blood, doing all this while the potential suspect is some meters away from them. They say that this machine was tested, and it identified 80% of individuals attempting to sneak weapons into a room (The Economist, 2008). It is clear that The Economist and Wendy Kaminer have very different ideas on the use of technology to combat terrorism. While Kaminer contends that the current technology fails and infringes on the privacy of ordinary citizens, The Economist is of the idea that new technologies in the pipeline will be more reliable and will not be culpable to racial profiling. The two articles discuss the issue of technology and privacy but organize their arguments in different ways. Wendy Kaminer in Trading Liberty for Illusion begins her article by contending that terrorist attacks and crime have always led Americans to allow the government to trample civil liberties when there is an attack because they feel under siege or frightened (Kaminer, 2004). She gives a brief history of US Presidents who