| A | B |
|---|
| §90 – Definition of Promissory Estoppel | (1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice require(2) A charitable subscription or a marriage settlement is binding under Subsection (1) without proof that the promise induced action or forbearance |
| Elements of promissory estoppel | Promise;Promisor’s reasonable expectation to induce action/forbearanceby promisee or third partydid induce action or forbearance;necessary to prevent injustice |
| Greiner v. Greiner | Action Induced (reliance)Injustice Suffered (detriment),Rule: Promises inducing definite and substantial actions are binding if injustice cannot be avoided.Mom promised deed to son |
| Wright v. Newman | Rule: Promissory Estoppel requires only that the reliance by the injured party be reasonable and not necessarily in fact. Enforceable contract can be through actions.(“Father” has to give $ to support child of woman he was married to when he acted as childs father |
| Katz v. Danny Dare, Inc | Rule: Three elements of Promissory Estoppel: (1) a promise, (2) a detrimental reliance on such promise, (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement. Relied on retirement, so didn't go look for a job. |
| Ravelo v. Hawaii County | Rule: relief granted will not place the ravelos in a better position that performance of the promise would’ve. (relied on for job; took substantial steps) |
| Quasi Contract (Implied-in-Law) to Avoid injustice | got benefit knows of benefit or appreciates itaccepted or retained benefit, ANDit would be inequitable for to retain benefit without paying fair value for it |
| Commerce v. Equity | Rule: A sub can lay claim to unjust enrichment when a subcontractor has exhausted all remedies against the general and still remained unpaid and the the owner had not given consideration to any persons for the improvement. |
| Morale Obligation (pre-existing obligation) | A promise made in recognition of a benefit previously received by the promisor from the promisee is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice |
| Mills v. Wyman | Rule: Moral obligation is sufficient consideration if there is a pre-existing obligation. There was no enforceable moral obligation because Levi was “of age” |
| Material Benefit, Subsequent Promise | there was no pre-existing obligation. (“Had they been able to, they would have agreed on deal |
| Webb v. McGowin | Rule: Moral obligation is sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay where the promisor has received a material benefit,(Employee says employer’s life and is himself paralyzed) |
