Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Neal spent $100 in reliance on the contract, which constituted Neal's reliance interest. Since reliance damages equal to the value of the reliance interest of the injured party, Matt owes Neal $100. This puts Neal in the same economic position as if the contract never happened. In a promissory estoppel context, consider the following example:
In many jurisdictions of the United States, promissory estoppel is an alternative to consideration as a basis for enforcing a promise. It is also sometimes called detrimental reliance. The American Law Institute in 1932 included the principle of estoppel into § 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, stating:
An Appellate Division, First Department panel rejected the reliance-based argument of promissory estoppel by the plaintiff, indicating that he would not suffer an unfair injury if the statute of ...
Estoppel forms part of the rules of equity, which were originally administered in the Chancery courts. Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts (e.g. words said or actions performed) which is different from an earlier set of facts.
A donee beneficiary is when a contract is made expressly for giving a gift to a third party, the third party is known as the donee beneficiary. The most common donee beneficiary contract is a life insurance policy. In the United States, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Chapter 6, Sections 133-147, covers third-party beneficiaries. [5]
Proprietary estoppel case law has, however, divided on the question of what kind of assurance and what kind of reliance must be present. In Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd , a property developer claimed an interest in a group of Knightsbridge flats after his expense in obtaining council planning permission. [ 6 ]
Drennan v. Star Paving Company, 51 Cal. 2d 409 (1958), was a California Supreme Court case in which the court held that a party who has detrimentally relied on an offer that is revoked prior to acceptance may assert promissory estoppel to recover damages. [1]
28. In Combe v Combe Denning L.J. limited the application of promissory estoppel, as he expounded the doctrine, to ensure that it did not displace the doctrine of consideration. His Lordship's solution of the problem was to hold that the promise should not itself be a cause of action, but merely the foundation of a defensive equity.