Another example of just Estoppel is the case of Sakharam Ganesh Pandit, an Indian emigrant and lawyer who obtained U.S. citizenship in 1914 because he was called „white.“ Subsequently, Pandit purchased property, was called to the California bar, married a white woman and renounced her property rights and estates in British India. Following the U.S. Supreme Court`s case against Thind, which found that the countries were considered non-white and in which Pandit represented the complainant Bhagat Singh Thind, the U.S. government chose to strip Pandit of its „illegally obtained“ citizenship. Pandit successfully opposed the distortion and argued that he would be unfairly harmed under estoppel just if he lost his citizenship, as it would render him stateless, lose his legal profession and make his marriage illegal. In U.S. v. Pandit, the U.S. Court of Business for the Ninth Circuit upheld Pandit`s citizenship and ended the process of denaturalization against him and other Indian-Americans.
  While there is also a doctrine of the proprietary Estoppel, the High Court of Australia has merged this doctrine with the doctrine of change of sola estoppel because of its similar criteria.  The constituent elements of an Estoppel owner should in principle include an applicant`s right of ownership and a response to that right on the basis of a fact or fact and a mixed law that could be prevented from asserting the person against whom the claim was filed. Treating „Estoppel`s own capital“ as a simple and ruthless behavior was a recipe for confusion. The appeal to which the applicant was entitled as a result of the facts found by the judge could not be characterized as either estoppel or property protection. His Lordship was the current view that the owner estoppel could not be prayed as an aid to enforce an agreement annulled by law (see 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989). A request for constructive confidence to remedy the situation, in response to a disappointed expectation of representation in incomplete contract negotiations, was misunderstood and could not be maintained by confidence in unserished behaviour. However, at the time of obtaining the building permit, the applicant was entitled to a quantum-meruit payment for his services. J. Fry summarized the five elements relating to Estoppel owner as follows:  The High Trees Case is an English contract law decision that confirmed the notion of change of sola. The case concerned High Trees, the accused and the Central London Property Trust, the complainants. The defendant rented a building in Clapham, London, by the applicant for a flat fee of $2,500 per year.
For more information on solatory estoppel, see this article from the UCLA Review of law and this article on the University of Chicago Law Review. Among the Estonians established in office (according to English law) there are: There are some warning signals from abroad that contractual estoppels could be subject to compensatory measures. In Chang Pui Yin v Bank of Singapore  HKEC 1721 (Chang Pui Yin), the Hong Kong court upheld the doctrine of contractual estoppels in non-sales cases; However, it also confirmed the existence of a advisory relationship between a bank and its clients, although it included clear provisions for non-consideration in the contractual documents.