SwampRat88 wrote:RPK34 wrote:AVBucks4239 wrote:Argue for X that he relied to his detriment, probably spent lots of time and some money trying to find investors, acted in reliance, these actions manifested consideration, etc. For W, argue that all of this wasn't really a detriment, very minimal financial burden, lacked consideration, etc. Talking it through and thinking for BOTH SIDES will usually lead you to the right answer.
Just a heads up: don't use terms like consideration in a promissory estoppel case. Promissory estopell exists absent a consideration.
But to put it even more precisely: the absence of consideration is a prerequisite in promissory estoppel.
Good point. The discussion of a potential option contract got me off tangent I guess.