This document presents an affirmative defense in response to a claim. It argues that the plaintiff is estopped from arguing a lack of authority, as the plaintiff had intentionally led the defendant to believe they had authority to represent minor heirs when negotiating a partition agreement. The defendant acted in belief of the plaintiff's representations of authority when entering into the partition.
This document presents an affirmative defense in response to a claim. It argues that the plaintiff is estopped from arguing a lack of authority, as the plaintiff had intentionally led the defendant to believe they had authority to represent minor heirs when negotiating a partition agreement. The defendant acted in belief of the plaintiff's representations of authority when entering into the partition.
This document presents an affirmative defense in response to a claim. It argues that the plaintiff is estopped from arguing a lack of authority, as the plaintiff had intentionally led the defendant to believe they had authority to represent minor heirs when negotiating a partition agreement. The defendant acted in belief of the plaintiff's representations of authority when entering into the partition.
This document presents an affirmative defense in response to a claim. It argues that the plaintiff is estopped from arguing a lack of authority, as the plaintiff had intentionally led the defendant to believe they had authority to represent minor heirs when negotiating a partition agreement. The defendant acted in belief of the plaintiff's representations of authority when entering into the partition.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
(Caption and Title)
ANSWER
(Admission and Specific Denials)
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That plaintiff is estopped from claiming his alleged lack of
authority to represent the minor heirs as a ground for the rescission of the partition in question, for he had, by his own declaration, act and/or omission, intentionally and deliberately led defendant to believe that he was lawfully authorized to represent said minor heirs when said partition was entered into, and defendant, acting upon such belief, entered into the same.
