promissory estoppel Flashcards
elements of Promissory estopel 4
- A promise
- The promisor’s reasonable expectation that the promise will induce action or forbearance by the promisee
- Actual reliance by the promisee and
- The necessity of enforcing the promise to avoid injustice
what factors do courts look at to determine if there was a reliance on a promise 4
The reasonableness of the promisee’s reliance
On the definite and substantial character in relation to the remedy sought
On the formality with which the promise is made and
The prevention of unjust enrichment
difference between promissory estopple and equitable estopel
PE is used as a cause of action while EE is used as a defense
EE- bars a person in litigation from contradicting her past statements of fact, even where those statements were false, when doing so would be unfair to the person who relied on the og (even if erroneous) statement
PE- concerns reliance on a promise or commitment to do or refrain from doing something
Ricketts v scothorn (they use equitable estoppel, don’t get it mixed up w/ PE) – grandfather went to P’s place of work and told her that he didn’t want her to have to work, and handed her a note (the note promised to pay enough money so she wouldn’t have to work) and said that he fixed something so that she didn’t have to work; P immediately told her boss that she quit; she didnt work for a year and then got a job as a bookkeeper, when the grandfather died, the estate refused to pay the P so she sued; issue whether there was consideration, and if not if there was equitable estoppel that would force d to fulfill the promise despite the lack of consideration
Equitable estoppel prevents a promisor from revoking an otherwise unenforceable gratuitous promise if the promisee foreseeably and reasonably relied on the promise to her detriment.
Greiner v greiner - Frank Greiner (defendant) was disinherited by his father. Maggie Greiner (plaintiff), Frank’s mother, promised him that, if he would move, she would give him property, though she did not specify what or how much property. Frank moved and began to occupy an 80-acre tract of land, though a deed was never executed. Maggie did say that she was going to give Frank a deed. Maggie filed an action against Frank to recover possession of the 80-acre tract. Issue of whether the promise was enforceable even though there was no consideration
Rule: a contract is formed when one promises to convey a specific tract of land and another is induced by the promise to substantially act or forbear from doing something.
Feinburg v Pfeiffer - D came to a resolution that P’s salary would increase and that she could retire when she wanted and when she did, she would get 200 dollars a month; D emphasized that they hoped she wouldn’t retire for a while; there was no K as to the length of P’s employment; P continued to work for two more years before she retired and D paid her 200 dollars a month; the prez of the company died and was replaced and the replacement was advised to stop the payments; issue of whether there was a legally binding K for P to be paid after she retired and whether P acted in reasonable reliance of the promise made by D that would create an enforceable K via PE
a gratuitous (and thus unenforceable) promise is nevertheless transformed into a binding and enforceable K via PE if the promisee reasonably AND detrimentally relies on the promise.
Pitts v McGraw-Edison Co - P was an independent contractor and had no employment k with D; when P was 67 he met with d’s sales manager and the manger told P that he had to retire; p got a check from D each month for 5 years and then he got a final letter saying they completed the series of payments; P sued; issue of whether there was consideration to make it more than a gratuitous promise; and did P act in reliance on D’s promise to invoke PE
Rule: a promise is not enforceable under the doctrine of PE if the promisee does not change circumstances in response to the promise ; ie he didnt rely on it to his DETRIMENT
Goodman v Dicker – D was a local distributor for a radio company, and P, with knowledge,encouragement and inducement from D apple for a dealer franchise to sell the products; D induced P to incur expenses in prep for the business, D represented that the application for the franchise had been accepted, however P got notice that it fell through; issue of whether D’s promise induced detrimental reliance on P’s end that could only be made right via EE?
Rule- even when there is no K, if the promise would reasonably induce, courts can use EE as a shield for P and estops defendant from denying that a contract exists
Hoffman v Red Owl- an agent for D represented to and agreed with P that D would build a store in a town and stock it for P to operate; in reliance of this agreement, P sold his bakery and bought the building site, in the end D kept asking more and more of P that P could not fulfill and the negotiation was terminated: issue of whether the promise in a PE needs to have all the essential elements
Rule - PE can be applied when no K, no consideration, but there was detrimental reliance that should be remedied
Blatt v USC - the law school order of the coif case; D represented to him that if he were in the top ten percent he ‘would be ELIGIBLE for election into the order’, and p relied on this info to attain membership, but he wasn’t elected even tho he was the 4th in his class; issue of whether there was a valid cause of action
Rule- a promisee cannot enforce a promise when the induced action or forbearance was not substantial and definite and benefited only the promisee
Here, the P doing well in school didn’t hurt him and the university didn’t gain anything from it
Spooner v reserve life ins co– a bulletin was issued by D that said they were putting in a new renewal bonus earning ; the language said the renewal bonus was voluntary contribution from the company and it could be taken away without notice, and P workers sued because they didn’t get paid; issue whether the language was an illusory promise and whether the promise was one that P relied on to their detriment
for PE you need an actual real promise and not an illusory promise that would induce and would have reasonable reliance.
