Epstein Secrets

e estoppel precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens that contract imposes."); Rood Co. v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Dade County, 102 So. 2d 139, 141-42 (Ha. 1958) (holding that rescission/cancellation of an agreement is not availab

pressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the

e estoppel precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens that contract imposes."); Rood Co. v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Dade County, 102 So. 2d 139, 141-42 (Ha. 1958) (holding that rescission/cancellation of an agreement is not availab

pressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the

e estoppel precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens that contract imposes."); Rood Co. v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Dade County, 102 So. 2d 139, 141-42 (Fla. 1958) (holding that rescission/cancellation of an agreement is not availa

pressly." United States States v. Menzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the

e estoppel precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens that contract imposes."); Rood Co. v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Dade County, 102 So. 2d 139, 141-42 (Ha. 1958) (holding that rescission/cancellation of an agreement is not availab

pressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the