{"id":17509,"date":"2023-01-25T02:46:34","date_gmt":"2023-01-25T02:46:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=17509"},"modified":"2023-02-11T20:17:59","modified_gmt":"2023-02-11T20:17:59","slug":"promissory-estoppel","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=17509","title":{"rendered":"promissory estoppel – a person may be bound to a promise (estopped to deny the promise) if another person was induced to take action on that promise to their own detriment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This page is continued from Civil Law Self-Help<\/a> >>>> \u00a7 3 – Which form(s) of relief are you seeking to help remedy the situation?<\/a> >>>> Legal Terms re: Types of Remedies:<\/a> >>>> Remedy<\/a> >>>> Estoppel<\/a>:
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
****************************<\/span><\/div>\n

promissory estoppel<\/span>:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/strong>(1924)<\/span><\/p>\n

1. The principle that a promise made without consideration<\/a> may nonetheless be enforced to prevent injustice if the promisor should have reasonably expected the promisee to rely on the promise and if the promisee did actually rely<\/a> on the promise to his or her detriment. <\/strong>Also termed (inaccurately) equitable estoppel<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. [1]
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

1. The principle that a promisor will be bound to a promise (that is, estopped to deny the promise), even though it is without consideration, if she intended that the promise should be relied<\/a> upon and it was in fact relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce the promise would result in an injustice.\u00a0 EXAMPLE:\u00a0 A general contractor whose successful bid for a contract to construct a house incorporates a supplier’s bid to him may be entitled to hold the supplier to her bid on the theory of promissory estoppel. <\/em><\/strong>[2]<\/span><\/p>\n

1. A new name for an established doctrine. The principal that an estoppel<\/a> may arise from the making of a promise, even though without consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact it was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice. 28 Am J2d Estop Sec 48<\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A promise which the promisor\u00a0 should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by the enforcement of the promise. Fried v Fisher<\/em>, 328 Pa 497, 197, 196 A 39, 115 ALR 149<\/span>.<\/strong> [3]<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Excerpt from Arthur Linton Corbin’s “Corbin on Contracts<\/a>“:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cOne of the earlier attempts at a doctrine of enforceability because of action in reliance was to state a rule that a promise might become enforceable by reason of \u2018promissory estoppel.\u2019 The use of this phrase made some headway, because it satished the need of the courts for a justification of their enforcement of certain promises in the absence of any bargain or agreed exchange. Nevertheless, the phrase is objectionable. The word estoppel<\/a> is so widely and loosely used as almost to defy dehnition yet, in the main, it has been applied to cases of misrepresentation of facts and not to promises. The American Law Institute was well advised in not adopting this phrase and in stating its rule in terms of action or forbearance in reliance on the promise.<\/span> \u00a0<\/strong><\/span>The doctrine of promissory estoppel is equitable in origin and nature and arose to provide a remedy through the enforcement of a gratuitous promise. Promissory is distinct from equitable estoppel in that the representation at issue is promissory rather than a representation of fact. \u2018Promissory estoppel and estoppel by conduct are two entirely distinct theories. The latter does not require a promise.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong>[4]<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Business Law Today <\/em>by Roger LeRoy Miller (11th Ed.):<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 “Sometimes, individuals rely on promises, and their reliance may form a basis for a court to infer contract rights and duties. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel (also called detrimental reliance), a person who has reasonably and substantially relied on the promise of another can obtain some measure of recovery. Promissory estoppel allows a party to recover on a promise even though it was made without consideration. Under this doctrine, a court may enforce an otherwise unenforceable promise to avoid an injustice that would otherwise <\/span><\/span><\/strong>result.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For the doctrine of promissory estoppel to be applied, the following elements are required:<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
    \n
  1. There must be a clear and definite promise. <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  2. The promisor should have expected that the promisee would rely on the promise.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  3. The promisee reasonably relied on the promise by acting or refraining from some act.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  4. The promisee\u2019s reliance was definite and resulted in substantial detriment.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Enforcement of the promise is necessary to avoid injustice.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If these requirements are met, a promise may be enforced even though it is not supported by consideration. In essence, the promisor (the offeror) will be estopped (barred or prevented) from asserting lack of consideration as a defense.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n
    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Promissory estoppel is similar in some ways to the doctrine of quasi contract…. In both situations, a court is acting in the interests of equity and imposes contract obligations on the parties to prevent unfairness even though no actual contract exists. The difference is that with quasi contract, no promise was made at all. In contrast, with promissory estoppel, an otherwise unenforceable promise was made and <\/span><\/strong>relied on.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n
    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Promissory estoppel was originally applied to situations involving gifts (I promise to pay you $1,000 a week so that you will not have to work) and donations to charities (I promise to contribute $50,000 a year to the All Saints orphanage). Later, courts began to apply the doctrine in other situations, including business transactions, employment relationships, and disputes among family members.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n
    CASE EXAMPLE 12.9 Jeffrey and Kathryn Dow own 125 acres of land in Corinth, Maine. The Dows regarded the land as their children\u2019s heritage, and the subject of the children\u2019s living on the land was often discussed within the family.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n
    With the Dows\u2019 permission, thcir daughter Teresa installed a mobile home and built a garage on the land. After Teresa married Jarrod Harvey, the Dows agreed to finance the construction of a house on the land for the couple. When Jarrod died in a motorcycle accident, however, Teresa financed the house with his life insurance proceeds. The construction cost about $200,000.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n
    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Teresa then asked her parents for a deed to the property so that she could obtain a mortgage. They refused. Teresa sued her parents based on promissory estoppel. Maine\u2019s highest court ruled in Teresa\u2019 favor. The court reasoned that the Dows\u2019 support and encouragement of their daughter\u2019 construction of a house on the land \u201cconclusively demonstrated\u201d their intent to transfer it. For years, they had made general promises to convey the land to their children, including Teresa. Teresa had reasonably relied on their promise in financing construction of <\/span><\/strong><\/span>the house to her detriment ($200,000). The court concluded that enforcing the promise was the only way to avoid injustice in this situation.<\/span>” <\/span><\/strong>[5]<\/span><\/div>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Related Terms:<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    reliance<\/a> –<\/span> trust in a person combined with an action based on that trust<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    consideration<\/a> –<\/span> something of value to someone else (may be tangible or intangible) which motivates someone else to do something<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    \n

     <\/p>\n

    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    References:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    [1]:\u00a0Black\u2019s Law Dictionary Deluxe Tenth Edition<\/em><\/a> by Henry Campbell Black & Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    [2]: \u00a0Ballantine\u2019s Law Dictionary <\/a>Legal Assistant Edition<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>by Jack Ballantine\u00a0(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>Doctored<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>by\u00a0Jack G. Handler,\u00a0J.D.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a9 1994 Delmar by Thomson Learning.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    [3]:\u00a0 Ballantine\u2019s Law Dictionary\u00a0with Pronunciations
    \n<\/em>Third Edition<\/a> by James A. Ballantine\u00a0(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Edited by William S. Anderson.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a9 1969 by THE LAWYER\u2019S CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    [4]:\u00a0\u00a0 Arthur Linton Corbin, Corbin on Contracts 204 (one-vol. ed., 1952).<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Ann Taylor Schwing, California Affirmative Defenses 5 34:16, at 35 (2d ed. 1996) (quoting Division of Labor Law Enforce<\/em>ment v. Transpacific Transp. Co<\/em>., 88 Cal. App. 3d 823, 829 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    [6]:\u00a0 Miller, Roger LeRoy. Business Law Today: 11th Edition<\/i>. Cengage Learning, 2017.\u00a0 ISBN 978-1-305-64452-6
    \n<\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    ************************<\/p>\n

    Back to Estoppel<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Back to Remedies<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Back to Section 3:<\/a> Are you seeking damages, injunctive relief, or both?<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Back to\u00a0Civil Law Self-Help<\/a>
    \n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Home Page<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This page is continued from Civil Law Self-Help >>>> \u00a7 3 – Which form(s) of relief are you seeking to help remedy the situation? >>>> Legal Terms re: Types of Remedies: >>>> Remedy >>>> Estoppel: **************************** promissory estoppel: (1924) 1. The principle that a promise made without consideration may nonetheless be enforced to prevent … Continue reading promissory estoppel – a person may be bound to a promise (estopped to deny the promise) if another person was induced to take action on that promise to their own detriment<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":16705,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-17509","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17509"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17509\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17619,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17509\/revisions\/17619"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16705"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}