Swimp wrote: emarxnj wrote: ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) wrote:
emarxnj wrote:Bonus question: Holding in the Kirksey v. Kirksey case said that "gratuitous promise is not an exchanged for bargain, even if relied upon". This is just an outdated case right? To show the injustice that occurs without promissory estoppel? Not sure who else read that one, but she pretty clearly relied on the promise.
Yep. Our contracts professor was pretty miffed that Antillico got so royally screwed.
Figured. So a promise to make a gift that is relied upon is enforceable then, assuming elements of promissory estoppel are all good? At that point, isn't that just a promise being exchanged for a performance (move up here girl)?
If you want to argue that the brother got some kind of benefit from her moving, and he was exchanging a promise for a performance, you're saying it was a contract. If you want to make a promissory estoppel argument, her moving was just something she had to do to to receive a gift. There was no consideration. Like "hey, come over here and I'll give you a piece of candy" --you coming over here isn't exactly something I'm bargaining for. It's just where you need to be to receive my gift.
There's no objectively right way to look at it, you just have to decide which perspective enables you to make the most persuasive argument that the promise should (or should not) be enforced.
Makes sense. I think the latter argument seems like a better case, but I'd have to re-read the case to see if he incurred any benefit. I feel like I may be taking advantage of this thread, but here goes another one.
I know the common law doesn't allow a promise based on past consideration + moral obligation (Wills v. Wyman case), and I have in my notes that Restatement section 86 is an exception to this, but I'm not exactly sure how.
86 says: Promise made in recognition of benefit previously received by promisor from promisee is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice EXCEPT WHEN:
a. the benefit was a gift or for whatever reason promisor was not unjustly enriched
b. value of of promise is disproportionate to benefit received
I'm trying to come up with a hypo where the promisor was previously unjustly enriched by the promisee, but having trouble internalizing this rule.