Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability? Forum
-
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:54 pm
Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:25 pm
Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?
Independent. PE is not a remedy in contract all.
-
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:54 pm
Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?
Many thanks.Rule11 wrote:Independent. PE is not a remedy in contract all.
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:47 pm
Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?
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.
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.
- LAWYER2
- Posts: 580
- Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:15 pm
Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?
I would think PE is lieu of consideration
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm
Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?
This.LAWYER2 wrote:I would think PE is lieu of consideration
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.)
- shepdawg
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm
Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?
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.
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:47 pm
Re: Promissory Estoppel: TOTALLY independent basis of liability?
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.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.
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.