Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
sfdreaming09
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:54 pm

Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?

Postby sfdreaming09 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:45 am

Why is PE, in virtually every supplement/casebook I've seen, discussed in the chapter on consideration? Any reason in particular or just a coincidence? Because I always thought PE was a TOTALLY independent basis of relief -- in other words, if you satisfied its requirements, relief could be recovered "to the extent justice requires."

Main question: Does PE only serve as equitable relief for contracts that lack consideration but are OTHERWISE WHOLLY ENFORCEABLE, or is it a TOTALLY INDEPENDENT basis of liability that allows recovery SOLELY on the basis of fulfillment of its requirements?

Rule11
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?

Postby Rule11 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:50 am

Independent. PE is not a remedy in contract all.

sfdreaming09
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?

Postby sfdreaming09 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:41 am

Rule11 wrote:Independent. PE is not a remedy in contract all.


Many thanks.

Racer 10 Seconds
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:47 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?

Postby Racer 10 Seconds » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:36 am

If you mean RST 90 promissory estoppel, the better answer is there is no answer.

Some courts view it as a different method of contract formation, look at RST 17 -> Contracts can be formed through either a 17(1) path or a 17(2) path. Other courts think of promissory estoppel as simply, as the previous poster mentioned, something outside of contract law. This starts to matter when you think about other issues that get in the way of making an agreement enforceable, such as Statute of Frauds, etc. Additionally, as you noted, remedies change.

RST 139, reliance, is more bizarre, but most courts have not adopted it so I'm not sure what your professor thinks about it.

Look to how your professor taught it to you.

User avatar
LAWYER2
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?

Postby LAWYER2 » Sun May 01, 2011 5:32 pm

I would think PE is lieu of consideration

zomginternets
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?

Postby zomginternets » Sun May 01, 2011 6:10 pm

LAWYER2 wrote:I would think PE is lieu of consideration


This.

The idea is that contracts need consideration in order to be enforced (i.e. mutual promises). Promissory estoppel is almost like enforcement of a K that doesn't have consideration (i.e. enforcing only one promise), hence why it is in the consideration chapter of the text book. (Of course, like the posters above said, it is not a contract at all though.)

User avatar
shepdawg
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?

Postby shepdawg » Mon May 02, 2011 12:36 am

There must be many students with professors who throw up the Restatement for each lesson. It's not law. This question depends on JX, but most of the courts would treat PE as an independent means for enforcing a promise. On my exam I added a separate section, after formation, for PE.

Racer 10 Seconds
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:47 pm

Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?

Postby Racer 10 Seconds » Mon May 02, 2011 7:44 am

shepdawg wrote:There must be many students with professors who throw up the Restatement for each lesson. It's not law. This question depends on JX, but most of the courts would treat PE as an independent means for enforcing a promise. On my exam I added a separate section, after formation, for PE.


Restatement illustrates the law. In some places, like RST 90, it is pretty on point with most courts. In other place, RST 139, it is not at all on point. You can make the same arguments without RST help, of course, and probably better to use cases to support your position.

The point remains that PE can either be a separate basis of recovery outside contract law; or it can be a separate way to form a contract, while remaining in contract law.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArtistOfManliness and 14 guests