The Principle of Estoppel in Civil Law as a Mechanism for Preventing Contradictory Behavior

The paper examines the legal nature of the estoppel principle, applied both as a result of unfair actions of the party and because of the party’s inconsistent behavior. The paper analyzes the possibility of applying the German principle of protestatio facto contraria (objection to the actual expression of will) and compares estoppel and the continental law principle venire contra factum proprium.The study classifies the rules of law regulating the application of the estoppel principle; two categories of norms are distinguished, namely, the norms related to the prohibition of unfair actions and the norms aimed at preserving the contract. The author compares the norms of the Russian civil legislation regulating the application of the estoppel principle and highlights the conditions under which its application is allowed. The paper discusses the possibility of applying the principle of estoppel in the absence of the party’s intentions to harm the counterparty. The author analyzes the court practice related to the prohibition of contradictory behavior. In particular, the author analyzes legal disputes caused by the parties’ references to the non-conclusion or invalidity of the contract, as well as related to the inconsistent refusal of the party from the contract. Additionally, the author identified the circumstances to be proved when referring the parties to the need to apply the estoppel principle. Based on the results of the analysis, the author proposes options for improving legislative regulation of the application of the estoppel principle. In particular, the author proposes to introduce the following criteria for analyzing the need to apply the estoppel principle: the degree of validity and reasonableness of expectations of the counterparty’s behavior; analysis of the counterparty’s behavior; a causal relationship between an inconsistent behavior of the party and the damage caused to the relying party; the degree of damage caused to the party as a result of the counterparty’s unscrupulous behavior.

1. Druzhinin AI. Printsip «estoppel» v deystvii: kogda uchastnik spora mozhet lishitsya prava vydvigat vozrazheniya [The principle of «estoppel» in action: when a participant in a dispute may lose the right to raise objections]. Vash partner-konsultant. 2015;20(9586):22-30. (In Russ.).

2. Zaitseva NV, Sedova ZhI. Printsip estoppel i otkaz ot prava v kommercheskom oborote Rossiyskoy Federatsii [The principle of estoppel and the waiver of the right in the commercial turnover of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2014. (In Russ.).

3. Kalamkarian RA. Estoppel kak institut mezhdunarodnogo prava [Estoppel as an institute of international law]. International Lawyer. Russian Journal of International Law. Modern Economics and Law. 2004;1:10-22. (In Russ.).

4. Karapetov AG. Dogovornoe i obyazatelstvennoe pravo (obshchaya chast): postateynyy kommentariy k statyam 307–453 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Contract and obligation law (general part): article-by-article commentary to Articles 307–453 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2017. (In Russ.).

5. Karapetov AG (ed.). Osnovnye polozheniya grazhdanskogo prava: postateynyy kommentariy k statyam 1–16.1 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [The main provisions of civil law: an article-by-article commentary on Articles 1–16.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: M-Logos, 2020. (In Russ.).

6. Karapetov AG. Otkaz ot dogovora, odnostoronnee izmeneniy ego usloviy i otkaz ot dogovornykh prav po modeli waiver: kommentariy k st. 450 i st. 450.1 GK [Waiver of the contract, unilateral changes to its terms and waiver of contractual rights under the waiver model: comment to Articles 450 and 450.1 of the Civil Code]. Available at: https://zakon.ru/blog/2015/10/12/otkaz_ot_dogovora_odnostoronnee_izmenenij_ego_uslovij_i_otkaz_ot_dogovornyx_prav_po_modeli_waiver_ko [Accessed: 26.04.2023]. (In Russ.).

7. Karapetov AG, Fedorov DV. Estoppel. Available at: https://m-logos.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/tezisyk-kruglomu-stolu-po-estoppelyu-d-fedorova.-karapetov.pdf [Accessed: 26.04.2020]. (In Russ.).

8. Kondrashova MA. Sootnoshenie estoppelya i doktriny zakonnykh ozhidaniy [The relationship between estoppel and the doctrine of legitimate expectations]. Civil Law Review. 2020;3:199-214. (In Russ.).

9. Mikryukov VA. Printsip dobrosovestnosti — novyy nravstvennyy ogranichitel grazhdanskikh prav [The principle of good faith is a new moral limiter of civil rights]. Journal of Russian Law. 2013;6(198):17-24. (In Russ.).

10. Nam KV. Estoppel v kontekste printsipa dobrosovestnosti [Estoppel in the context of good faith principle]. Zakon. 2020;4:38-46. (In Russ.).

11. Nikolaeva KYu. Priroda, istoricheskoe proiskhozhdenie doktriny «estoppel», opyt i aktualnye problemy v praktike primeneniya sudami RF [Legal nature, historical origin of the doctrine of esto ppel, practice and actual issues of applying in courts of the Russian Federation]. Law and Economics. 2022;6:24-30. (In Russ.).

12. Romanov AK. Predposylka ogranichennoy ratsionalnosti v izuchenii vliyaniya institutov na ekonomicheskoe povedenie [The legal system of England: A Studyguide]. Moscow: Delo Publ.; 2000. (In Russ.).

13. Sedova ZhI, Zaitseva NV. Printsip estoppel i otkaz ot prava v kommercheskom oborote Rossiyskoy Federatsii [The principle of estoppel and the waiver of the right in the commercial turnover of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2014. (In Russ.).

14. Fedorov DV. Estoppel v arendnykh i inykh dlyashchikhsya otnosheniyakh [Estoppel in rental and other continuing relationships]. Zakon. 2020;4:65-78. (In Russ.).

15. Chernykh II. Estoppel v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [Estoppel in Civil Proceedings]. Laws of Russia. Experience. Analysis. Practice. 2015;12:81-89. (In Russ.).

16. Shirvindt AM. Ssylka na nichtozhnost sdelki kak zloupotreblenie pravom. Izobretenie sudov, zakreplennoe v zakone [The reference to the nullity of the transaction as an abuse of law. Invention of courts, enshrined in law]. Arbitration Practice for Lawyers. 2015;7:24-41. (In Russ.).

17. Shukhareva AV. Rol printsipa dobrosovestnosti storon v institute nedeystvitelnosti sdelok [The role of the principle of good faith of the parties in the institution of invalidity of transactions]. Russian Justicia. 2017;11:9- 12. (In Russ.)