Promissory Estoppel
An electronics store owner applied to become a distributor of computers manufactured by a particular company. The company promised the store owner that it would grant him a distribution contract. The store owner spent $10,000 in preparation to enter into business as a distributor. The company then informed the store owner that it was withdrawing its promise of a distribution contract. The store owner would have earned $50,000 in profits as a distributor.
If the store owner sues the computer company seeking to recover on a theory of promissory estoppel, how much is he likely to recover?
A father promised his son that if the son married the daughter of a politician within 18 months, the father would assume responsibility for the son’s student loans. The father was primarily motivated to make this promise by a tax deduction that he thought would be available to him if he paid the son’s student loans, although he was also glad to help his son and hoped the son would marry the politician’s daughter. The son agreed because he already planned to propose to the politician’s daughter, but the father and son never signed a written contract. Fourteen months later, the son married the politician’s daughter. The father refused to make any payments on the son’s loans, however, because the father had learned that he would not in fact qualify for any tax deductions.
Is the father’s oral promise to pay off the son’s student loans enforceable?
C No, because the contract allowed for performance extending beyond one year.
A general contractor placed a bid for a large government contract to build an airport. The general contractor solicited bids from subcontractors for various aspects of the project. The general contractor listed the lowest-bidding subcontractors in its own bid application but informed all the listed subcontractors that this inclusion did not constitute an acceptance of their bids and that the general contractor reserved the right to select different subcontractors. The county government selected the general contractor to build the airport. The government then issued a press release naming the general contractor as the winning bidder and also naming all of the subcontractors listed in the general contractor’s bid. The listed plumbing subcontractor saw the press release and subsequently declined several offers to do other work, based on its belief that it would be busy working on the airport project for the next several years. The general contractor then informed the plumbing subcontractor that it was choosing a different subcontractor.
If the plumbing subcontractor sues the general contractor under a theory of promissory estoppel, is it likely to recover?
Incorrect
A man had an extra ticket to the opera. He offered to take his sister, who accepted. In anticipation of the night at the opera, the sister purchased a new dress and jewelry and went to an expensive salon to have her hair and makeup done. The man then called his sister and told her that he was taking someone else instead.
If the sister sues the man under a theory of promissory estoppel for the cost of her dress, jewelry, hairdo, and makeup, what is the man’s best defense?
Two roommates, one employed and one unemployed, moved into a house together and decided to have the house’s interior painted. The unemployed roommate, who was about to start a new job, promised the employed roommate that if she would advance the cost of having the house painted, the unemployed roommate would pay her back half of the painting expense from the unemployed roommate’s first paycheck. The employed roommate agreed and hired a painter to paint the house for $1,500. After the unemployed roommate got his first paycheck, he failed to pay the employed roommate as promised.
Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which of the following findings would support enforcing the unemployed roommate’s promise to pay half of the painting expenses?
C That the employed roommate took definite and substantial action in reliance on the unemployed roommate’s promise.
D That the employed roommate expected the unemployed roommate to pay her back half of the painting expense.
C That the employed roommate took definite and substantial action in reliance on the unemployed roommate’s promise.
A plaintiff brought a breach-of-contract action and sought relief on alternative grounds. First, the plaintiff sought to enforce the contract on the ground that it was a valid contract. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought damages on the ground of promissory estoppel.
Which of the following is NOT required in order for the plaintiff to prevail on the ground of promissory estoppel?