PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL- COMMON LAW

Question 1

Policy

Answer 1

Fairness

Question 2

Fundamental goal of Promissory Estoppel:

Answer 2

i. To protect a party if that party legitimately relies on another party’s promise, even though the technical requisites for contract formation have not been met.
1. Provides a way for a party to get relief due to justifiable reliance for a promise that was made, even if there was no contract.

Question 3

Usually present when

Answer 3

P sues»»D says no contract»»>P gets a second chance with Promissory Estoppel on D’s promise.

Question 4

Elements of Promissory Estoppel

Answer 4

1. A promise;
   2.Of the kind that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance;
   3.The promise does induce such action or forbearance; and
   4.Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

Question 5

FIRST ELEMENT-A promise

Answer 5

1. Must be a promise on which the claim is based.
2. Statements of present intention or vague statements
   about the future would not qualify as a promise.
3. The statement must contain an unambiguous assurance
   of future action to be considered a promise.

Question 6

SECOND ELEMENT-Of the kind that the promisor should reasonably expect to
induce action or forbearance;

Answer 6

1. Foreseeable reliance: the promisee’s reliance must be reasonably foreseeable to the promisor at the time of the promise.

Question 7

THIRD ELEMENT-The promise does induce such action or forbearance;

Answer 7

1. Actual reliance: The actual reliance must be induced by
   the promise.
2. Action or reliance cannot be taken on account of other
   factors.

Question 8

FOURTH ELEMENT-Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

Answer 8

1. A promise that meets the other elements will be binding
   if injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the agreement.
   a. Courts will consider the blameworthiness of the breach.

Question 9

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR CONSIDERATION

Answer 9

Promissory estoppel bars a party from asserting lack of consideration where reliance was induced by the party asserting that there was no consideration.

Question 10

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AS A
Mechanism for Making Certain Offers Irrevocable

Answer 10

Drennan v. Star Paving Co.-

Reasonable reliance resulting in a foreseeable prejudicial change in position affords a compelling basis also for implying a subsidiary promise not to revoke an offer for a bilateral contract.