[extract] It seems that there is no dispute that the object of equitable estoppel is to avoid detriment to the induced party. What is in dispute is the definition of that detriment. It is suggested that, in order to avoid conceptual anomalies, detriment in equitable estoppel should be understood in the sense of ‘the real detriment’, as identified by Dixon J in Grundt, namely, as that detriment which would be suffered by the induced party if the inducing party were permitted to abandon, as the basis of their mutual legal relationship, the assumption which he had induced the other party to accept, and which that other party has accepted either through the latter’s action or through the latter’s inaction.
Ong, Denis S. K
"Equitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment,"
Bond Law Review:
1, Article 8.
Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol11/iss1/8