How To Prove A California Estoppel By Silence or Acquiescence Defense

 

How To Prove A California Estoppel By Silence or Acquiescence Defense

 

In California, a defense of Estoppel By Silence or Acquiescence is defined as:

Estoppel by Silence or Acquiescence is a type of estoppel that prevents someone from asserting something when that person had both the duty and the opportunity to speak up earlier, and his or her silence put another person at a disadvantage.

It simply means:

When someone had a duty to speak up earlier but didn’t, so the court prevents them from speaking up now.

There are 4 elements of the defense:

  • Element 1. The plaintiff remained silent or inactive in a situation where they had a duty to speak or take action. The plaintiff didn’t say or do anything when they should have, which can be used as a defense in court to argue that they accepted a situation or agreement by their silence or inaction.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s actions but chose not to voice any objections for several months.
    * The plaintiff had a contractual obligation to report any discrepancies but failed to do so despite having knowledge of the issue.
    * The plaintiff observed the defendant’s conduct and made no effort to communicate their disapproval or concerns.
    * The plaintiff had multiple opportunities to address the situation but remained silent, allowing the defendant to proceed without challenge.
    * The plaintiff’s inaction persisted even after receiving advice from third parties to take appropriate steps to address the matter.

  • Element 2. The plaintiff had an opportunity to speak. The plaintiff had a chance to express their concerns or objections but chose not to, which can weaken their case by suggesting they accepted the situation as it was, rather than challenging it.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff was present at the meeting where the issue was discussed and had the chance to voice their concerns.
    * The plaintiff received multiple emails outlining the situation and was invited to respond but chose not to engage.
    * The plaintiff attended a public forum specifically designed for stakeholders to express their opinions on the matter.
    * The plaintiff was aware of the ongoing discussions and had ample time to intervene before any decisions were made.
    * The plaintiff had access to all relevant documents and was encouraged to ask questions but remained silent throughout the process.

  • Element 3. The plaintiff remained silent. The plaintiff’s silence means they didn’t speak up or object when they had the chance, which can be used as a defense in court to argue that they accepted a situation or agreement by not saying anything against it.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s actions but chose not to voice any objections for over six months.
    * The plaintiff had multiple opportunities to express concerns but remained silent during all relevant discussions.
    * The plaintiff observed the defendant’s conduct and did not take any steps to challenge it until after the defendant had acted.
    * The plaintiff’s silence was consistent with their prior acceptance of similar conduct from the defendant.
    * The plaintiff failed to communicate any dissatisfaction despite being informed of the defendant’s actions on several occasions.

  • Element 4. The defendant relied upon plaintiff’s silence to his or her detriment. The defendant assumed the plaintiff agreed to something because the plaintiff didn’t speak up or object, and this assumption led the defendant to make decisions that negatively affected them.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s actions but chose not to communicate any objections for several months.
    * The defendant made significant financial investments based on the plaintiff’s inaction and lack of response to prior communications.
    * The plaintiff had previously expressed approval of the defendant’s conduct, leading the defendant to believe that silence indicated consent.
    * The defendant incurred expenses and commitments that would not have been made had the plaintiff voiced any concerns earlier.
    * The plaintiff’s prolonged silence created a reasonable expectation for the defendant that the plaintiff accepted the situation as it was.

(See Spray, Gould & Bowers v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co. (1999) 71 Cal.app.4th 1260, 1268. SG&B v. AIIC, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 1999.)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Defense of Estoppel By Silence or Acquiescence, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively navigate your legal journey.

Prove Your CA Estoppel By Silence or Acquiescence Defense

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.