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:
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.
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]
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 ...
Promissory estoppel Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, commonly called High Trees , is a leading opinion in the High Court relating to contract law . It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the contract law of England and Wales .
Based upon recent case pronouncements by both New York’s highest court and federal courts, the doctrine of promissory estoppel should be invoked with selectivity, particularly when used to ...
Any attempt to use promissory estoppel will fail if the debtor behaves inequitably: D&C Builders v Rees[1966] [18] Pay more; One party refuses to perform her side of the contract unless a larger sum of money is paid. [19] For example, Christine agrees to sell Julian a set of textbooks for $300.