1 / 79

George Mason School of Law

George Mason School of Law. Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu. Estoppel. Estoppel by representation of fact Promissory estoppel. Estoppel: An Ideological Battle?. Samuel Williston. Arthur Corbin. Oliver Wendell Holmes.

oni
Download Presentation

George Mason School of Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

  2. Estoppel • Estoppel by representation of fact • Promissory estoppel

  3. Estoppel: An Ideological Battle? Samuel Williston Arthur Corbin Oliver Wendell Holmes

  4. Promisory Estoppel and RelianceA sword, not a Shield

  5. Ricketts v. Scothorn • I assume you were as distressed as I was at this example of male chauvinism…

  6. Ricketts v. Scothorn • Was there consideration given by Katie for the promise? • What was the reliance?

  7. George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu

  8. Exam • Writing by laptop • Four questions, Two hours…

  9. What kind of reliance is needed? • Suppose I promise you $1,000,000 and, believing me, you purchase a new car. I renege. • Have you relied? • And would this ground a remedy?

  10. What kind of reliance is needed? • Suppose I promise you $1,000,000 and, believing me, you feel overjoyed. • Have you relied?

  11. Psychic Reliance What happens when the cheque bounces tomorrow… Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy

  12. What kind of reliance is needed? • Suppose I promise you $1,000,000, and have no intention of performing, but think it would be amusing to fool you.

  13. Haase v. Cardoza • Was the promise supported by consideration?

  14. Haase v. Cardoza • Was the promise supported by consideration? • What about reliance?

  15. Haase v. Cardoza • What about reliance? • The former restatement provided for no relief unless the reliance was “definite and substantial.” • What is the effect of the change?

  16. Haase v. Cardoza • What about reliance? • Present Restatement § 90 conditions relief: “injustice can be avoided only by enforcement.” • What does that mean?

  17. Wright v. Newman (p. 160) • How would you decide this? • What was the reliance?

  18. Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability?

  19. Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability? • And why might he not? • In a case such as Haase…

  20. Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability? • And why might he not? • Cf. Ricketts

  21. Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability? • And why might he not? • Cf. Ricketts • How would you expect promisors to react, in an interfamily setting, if all promises were enforceable.

  22. Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability? • And why might he not? • How would you expect promisors to react, in an interfamily setting, if all promises were enforceable. • Fewer promises • Conditional promises

  23. Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability? • And why might he not? • Might promisees sometimes be better off if family promises are not enforceable?

  24. The Employment Context • Feinberg v. Pfeiffer • What was the promise and why was it made?

  25. The Employment Context • Feinberg v. Pfeiffer • What was the promise and why was it made? • What was the reliance?

  26. The Employment Context • Feinberg v. Pfeiffer • What was the promise and why was it made? • What was the reliance? • What it relevant that she discovered she had cancer?

  27. Why a different result in Hayes?

  28. Why a different result in Hayes? • Feinberg retired after the promise; Hayes decided to retire before the promise, and retired a week after it was made • No formal provision, no board resolution

  29. Why a different result in Hayes? • Did Hayes have a bad lawyer?

  30. Why a different result in Hayes? • Did the promisors intend to assume legal liability in this case? In Feinberg?

  31. Chartiable Subscriptions • Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell • Charles City College operated from 1967 to 1968. It welcomed unconventional students who had not seen success at other colleges. It [was] also attended by a substantial number of young men seeking draft deferments that would allow them to avoid military service during the Vietnam War. (Wikipedia)

  32. Chartiable Subscriptions • You and I meet and agree that we will both donate $5,000 to a college • Consideration?

  33. Chartiable Subscriptions • I pledge $1,000,000 to a college which promises to name a building after me • Consideration? Allegheny College Allegheny College

  34. Chartiable Subscriptions • Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell • Did Salsbury rely on the subscription? • Restatement § 90(2)

  35. Chartiable Subscriptions • Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell • Are you satisfied with the rationale?

  36. Charitable Subscriptions • Can you reconcile Salsbury with DeLeo?

  37. Charitable Subscriptions • Can you reconcile Salsbury with DeLeo? • Illness • Fiduciary relationship • Oral promise • Storage room?

  38. Charitable Subscriptions • Should such promises automatically be binding? • Is that what 90(2) requires? • Comment f

  39. Charitable Subscriptions • Why so few such cases?

  40. The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin p. 191 W.T. Smith Lumber Co., Chapman AL

  41. The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin J. Greeley McGowin

  42. The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin • Recall Bailey v. West • Is Webb a suitable case for relief in quasi-contract?

  43. The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin • Recall Bailey v. West • Is Webb a suitable case for relief in quasi-contract? • What did the promise add?

  44. The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin • Treat this as a contracts case. Is there a consideration problem?

  45. The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin • Treat this as a contracts case. Is there a consideration problem? • The past consideration rule

  46. The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin • Treat this as a contracts case. Is there a consideration problem? • The past consideration rule • The material benefits rule: • Restatement § 86

  47. The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin • Can you distinguish it from Mills v. Wyman: p.192?

  48. The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin • Can you distinguish it from Mills v. Wyman? • What about Boothe v. Fitzpatrick (p. 198)

  49. The Material Benefits Rule • Previously binding promises • Restatement § 82 • Statute of Limitations • Restatement § 83 • Debt discharged in bankruptcy • Restatement § 85 • Voidable duties

  50. The Material Benefits Rule • Pitching ideas: Desny v. Wilder p. 193

More Related