1

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?

3

His approach asks what assumptions the recipient of the services has induced in the other party

A Google search gives the following definitions for induce:

  1. succeed in persuading or influencing (someone) to do something.

  2. bring about or give rise to.

When you say induce, you are trying to manipulate someone's internal state or thinking so they choose to do something. (You aren't trying to change external circumstances to make them do something - that would be to compel, and you aren't directly trying to make them do something - that would be to coerce.)

So, think about it: where is the "thing" that you are inducing? It starts in the person you are trying to induce to do X.

  • 1
    You thought through your answer well. To manipulate someone's internal state or thinking would require the preposition, in. Great clarity! – JimM Nov 13 '14 at 15:50
  • @Jim +1 I agree; it's a supernal answer! To ultrasawblade: +1. Thank you effusively for your detail. – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Nov 15 '14 at 4:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.