ABSTRACT
In most cases estoppel is triggered by detrimental reliance on the representation, with or without other factors, and with or without mention of unconscionability. “Unconscionability” is a difficult term; while in one case it may appear to mean simply detrimental reliance, in another it may refer to an unspecified range of further factors. The temptation is to construct a unified estoppel, picking features from the different forms and offering a single version of estoppel for adoption by the courts. In most of the equitable estoppel cases the court is just looking at detrimental reliance, whether or not labelled unconscionability. The distinction between common law and equitable estoppel has become a matter of label rather than substance. Outside the formal estoppels, then, it is suggested that the law of estoppel does form a unity, with a number of qualifications.
