Top Law Schools

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?

Independent. PE is not a remedy in contract all.

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

Many thanks.

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.

I would think PE is lieu of consideration

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.)

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.

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.