ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff owned a bakery but wanted to operate Defendant grocery store franchise. Defendant representative strung him along and gave advice in how to make it happen, promised that it was set to happen and Plaintiff sold his bakery and moved in reliance on the promise. Defendant had made numerous promises but not enough that would establish a contract to establish a store that Plaintiff would run.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Promises that a party can reasonably expect will be relied upon, are relied upon may be enforced to prevent injustice even if the promise itself would not be sufficiently definite to meet the requirements to form an offer for a binding contract.
Issue. Whether the promise necessary to embrace a cause of action for promissory estoppel must contain all the essential details of a proposed transaction necessary to be equivalent to an offer that could form a binding contract if the promise were to accept the same.
Held. Promissory estoppel could be invoked when necessary to avoid injustice. Restatement Section 90 does not require the promise to meet the requirements of an offer that could ripen into a contract. Rather here since it was shown that the promisor could reasonably expect the promises to induce action, the promise did induce the action and injustice could only be avoided by enforcement of the promise. Defendant had to pay the amounts lost by the plaintiff due to his reliance on their unkept promises.
Where damages are awarded in promissory estoppel instead of specifically enforcing the promisor's promise, they should be only such as in the opinion of the court are necessary to prevent injustice.View Full Point of Law