Laserfiche WebLink
into knowledge that made any reliance by them unreasonable. See <br /> Federal Lumber Co. v. Wheeler, 643 P.2d 31 (Colo: 1981) <br /> (essential element of estoppel is that claimant lack knowledge as <br /> to the truth of the facts in question) ; Colorado Ground Water <br /> Comm'n v. Dreiling, 198 Colo. 560, 606 P.2d 836 (1979) (no <br /> evidence in record to support reasonable reliance where claimant <br /> came into knowledge of the facts) ; American Securities Transfer <br /> v. Pantheon Indust . , supra (reliance not justified where claimant <br /> knew facts) ; Computer Associates Intern. , Inc. v. American <br /> Fundware, Inc. , -831 F.Supp. 1516 (D. Colo. 1993) (same) . <br /> Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that the individual <br /> defendants were officers, directors, and/or representatives for <br /> the bankrupt company. They had done bids for reclamation work to <br /> be performed (v. 1, p. 184) . Thus, the defendants had a means of <br /> knowing the true facts about reclamation. Consequently, any <br /> reliance by them on the Division' s estimate to mean that the <br /> estimate was a final determination of costs was unjustified. See <br /> In re Marriage of Dennin and Lohf , supra (where party knows facts <br /> or has a convenient means of knowing facts, he cannot contend <br /> that he reasonably relied on another' s representation) ; American <br /> Securities Transfer v. Pantheon Indust . , supra (same) . See also <br /> Emery Min. Corp. , supra (party had duty to comply with statute, <br /> and to extent that party relied on agency' s interpretation of <br /> statute, the party assumed the risk that such interpretation was <br /> in error) . <br /> 20 <br />