Source: p 90, The Law of Contract, 5 ed (2012), by O’Sullivan and Hilliard
Spence (1999) has suggested that estoppel might solve many of the problems dealt with in this chapter. His approach asks what assumptions the recipient of the services has induced in the other party, whether the other party has relied on these assumptions to his detriment, and if so, whether it would be ‘unconscionable’ for the recipient not to remedy this detriment.
Please explain why the preposition must be in? I guess that the meaning is: His approach asks what assumptions the recipient of the services has caused the other party to adopt, ... But I would've written induced FOR or TO or TOWARDS?