The verb estop, which comes from the Middle English estoppen, itself borrowed from the old French estop(p)er, estouper, probably from the Vulgar Latin *stuppāre. “stop with drag, seal”, from the Latin stuppa, “broken flax”, from the ancient Greek stump, “broken flax”.  The noun estoppel is based on the old French estoupail, bouchon,, a derivative of estouper. Some types of forfeiture under English, Australian and American laws are as follows: Estoppel promissory is the legal principle that a promise is legally enforceable, even if it is made without formal consideration, if a promisor has made a promise to a promisor, which then relies on that promise to his later detriment. The promissory note denier aims to prevent the polluter from arguing that an underlying promise should not be legally maintained or enforced. The doctrine of forfeiture of promissory notes is part of the law in the United States and other countries, although the exact legal requirements for preventing promissory notes vary not only between countries, but also between different jurisdictions, such as states. B, in the same country. Confiscation by tolerance can occur when one person gives a legal warning to another person on the basis of a clearly stated legal fact or principle and the other person does not respond within a “reasonable time”. Tolerance usually assumes that the other person has lost the legal right to claim otherwise. The fair estoppel is the American counterpart of the estoppel by representation. Its elements are summarized as follows: The legal doctrine of promissory estoppel is applied in all U.S.
states and has its roots in justice.  In contract law, the confiscation of promissory notes is an exception to the requirement of consideration for the applicability of a contract. Even if no exchange is negotiated, a promise is enforceable if the following three elements are met: estoppel is sometimes called a rule of proof whereby a person is excluded from proof of a fact that has already been clarified, or is otherwise excluded from the application, but this may be too much simplification. First, while some seizures are intended to prevent a party from asserting facts, others are intended to prevent a party from asserting a right or claim. Second, under conflict-of-laws law in common law systems, evidence is generally treated as a procedural matter for the law of the district court (the lex fori), whereas it is generally accepted that forfeiture may affect substantive rights and are therefore matters that must be determined by the applicable law (or lex causae) governing the particular issue.  The confiscation of promissory notes sometimes occurs in commercial transactions and it is useful to be able to recognize it and to protect oneself from possible effects. In order for the forfeiture of promissory notes to be claimed, the target recipient must have changed its position on the basis of an assumption made by the tenderer and the target recipient would suffer disadvantages if the undertaking were not respected. In general, confiscation is “a shield, not a sword” – it cannot be used alone as the basis for an act.  It does not remove any rights either. In High Trees, the plaintiff company was able to restore payment of the full rent from early 1945 and could have reinstated the entire rent at any time in accordance with the original promise, provided that reasonable notice had been given. In this case, confiscation has been applied to a “negative promise”, i.e. a promise in which a party promises not to enforce all rights.
While there is debate about whether “lack of scruples” is something that English courts must consider when considering forfeiture by presenting facts, Australian courts clearly do so. :p ara. 9–03 This element is fulfilled when one party encourages the other party to make assumptions that lead to trust.  A debt forsong agreement generally has the same binding effects on the parties as a valid contract. If a party fails to fulfil an obligation arising from the forfeiture of guilt, a court may choose to award either damage of trust or damage of expectation. “Any person who, by his speech or conduct, has caused another person to act in a certain way should not be allowed to adopt a contradictory position, attitude or conduct, is not presumed to be the loss or harm of others.”  For example, a party with multiple and contradictory legal positions is prevented between two or more claimants from expressing its views against another coherent and specific claim, i.e., preferential treatment for certain claims over uncertain claims. In English law, Estoppel by representation of fact is a term coined by Spencer Bower. This type of estoppel is also referred to as “common law estoppel by representation” in Halsbury`s Laws of England, Volume 16(2), reissued in 2003. Estoppel in pais (literally “by act of notoriety” or “solemn formal act”) is the historical root of legal confiscation through representation and fair legal confiscation. The terms Estoppel in Pais and Equitable Estoppel are used interchangeably in U.S. law. The status of disclosure confiscation is less clear in Australia.
Two landmark decisions seek to merge customary law and just estoppel into one doctrine, but the New South Wales Court of Appeal continues to treat representational forfeiture at common law as opposed to equitable forfeiture.  This may be relevant to deciding which court has jurisdiction to rule on this issue. Australian law has now gone beyond the position taken in the English High Trees case in cases where there is no pre-existing legal relationship between the two parties and where the legal protection of promissory notes can be used as a “sword” and not just as a “shield”. .