Helpful Hints
- (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
- (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
- (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.
Courts have observed that 'in proper cases an estoppel predicated upon grounds of silence or fraud may override the statute of frauds.' Callaham v. Arenson, 239 N.C. 619, 626, 80 S.E.2d 619, 625 (1954) (citations omitted). Judicial estoppel 'protect[s] the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.' New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 1814, 149 L.Ed.2d 968, 977 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The North Carolina statute of frauds does not contain an exception to the signature requirement for agreements reached in court. However, equitable doctrines such as estoppel 'serve[ ] to moderate the unjust results that would follow from the unbending application of common law rules and statutes.' Brooks v. Hackney, 329 N.C. 166, 173, 404 S.E.2d 854, 859 (1991).
Broadly speaking, judicial estoppel prevents a party from acting in a way that is inconsistent with its earlier position before the court. Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 28-29, 591 S.E.2d 870, 888-89 (2004). This equitable doctrine, which may be invoked in a court's discretion, id., is 'inherently flexible' and requires ...
