map to set the northern boundary for Estate Langmath. Further, Blake argues, Farrington commissioned the Harrigan map. Because Farrington commissioned the Harrigan map, Blake argues, the Superior Court should have estopped Farrington from relying on the Olive map or any document other than the Harrigan map as representing the boundary of Estate Anna’s Retreat. Equitable estoppel, or estoppel in pais, is a doctrine designed to prevent one party from relying to its detriment on the representations of another party. Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 650 (3d Cir. 1989). For the doctrine to apply here, Farrington must have misrepresented a material fact to Blake with the intent that Blake would rely on that fact to his detriment. See United States ex rel. K & M Corp. v .D. Tenn. 1982) (<HOLDING>). Farrington merely commissioned Harrigan to
holding that to assert a viable equal protection claim plaintiffs must first make a threshold showing that they were differently treated from others who were similarly situated to them holding noncompete nondisclosure and lease contract agreements were maritime contracts when used in the context of employment aboard an exploration vessel holding that architectural drawings were representations when they were used by the party who commissioned them to induce others to enter into lease agreements in a shopping mall holding that the lessors interest in the leased property was subject to liens because it was perfectly obvious that the parties knew that the improvements at issue were the pith of the lease and that except for them the lease would not have been executed and because the improvements were essential to the purpose of the lease holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to present testimony that they were induced to enter an automobile lease by promises that they could disregard terms of the lease