https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173050 A party is estopped from denying a transfer where its authorised agent signs a delivery order in circumstances reasonably showing assent, and the other side advances money and acts on that representation. The court treated the agent's conduct, viewed in the transaction's context, as sufficient to bind the principal and prevent repudiation after part-delivery of the goods. It also held that estoppel is not confined to sections 115 to 117 of the Evidence Act: those provisions cover one evidentiary form of estoppel but do not exclude other recognised forms, including estoppel by conduct in law and equity. The appeal failed because the defendants could not resile from the induced position. en-us Tue, 03 Feb 1880 00:00:00 +0521 Tue, 08 Sep 2015 11:34:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173050 A party is estopped from denying a transfer where its authorised agent signs a delivery order in circumstances reasonably showing assent, and the other side advances money and acts on that representation. The court treated the agent's conduct, viewed in the transaction's context, as sufficient to bind the principal and prevent repudiation after part-delivery of the goods. It also held that estoppel is not confined to sections 115 to 117 of the Evidence Act: those provisions cover one evidentiary form of estoppel but do not exclude other recognised forms, including estoppel by conduct in law and equity. The appeal failed because the defendants could not resile from the induced position. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Feb 1880 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173050