0
In order to help people from scenarios such as this example Tom Green spent his time away from work on his hobby, model trains. His train set was very large and consisted of rare and one-of-a-kind trains. One day, while visiting with a fellow train hobbyist Harry, Tom said, "When I retire in two years from Grocery, I'm going to sell my trains and spend the rest of my years traveling on real trains." Tom then told Harry that he was the only person he planned to offer his trains to because he knew Harry would take good care of them. Harry said he looked forward to the day when he could buy the trains. Harry then spent the next two years and most of his savings building a new 2,000 sq. ft. room onto his house to make room for the trains. When Harry told Tom that he was building the new room, Tom just smiled. Tom also heard that Harry had borrowed money from his aunt to buy the trains. When Tom retired, he sold his trains to David. Harry sued Tom claiming breach of contract, or in the alternative, for promissory estoppel. Who wins?
What else can I help you with?
The doctrine of promissory estoppel requires a clear and definite promise?
ture
The circumstances where an offer cannot be withdrawn under promissory estoppel is also known as?
Detrimental reliance (promissory estoppel), 181, 188 Cheeseman (2010) stated, "EQUITY: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL The doctrine of promissory estoppel, or equitable estoppel, is another equitable exception to the strict application of the Statute of Frauds. The version of promissory estoppel in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides that if parties enter into an oral contract that should be in writing under the Statute of Frauds, the oral promise is enforceable against the promisor if three conditions are met: (1) The promise induces action or forbearance of action by another, (2) the reliance on the oral promise was foreseeable, and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the oral promise.Where this doctrine applies, the promisor is estopped ( prevented ) from raising the Statute of Frauds as a defense to the enforcement of the oral contract." (p.226)
What does a promissory estoppel do?
Promissory estoppel is when a person makes a false statement to another and the listener relies on what was told to him/her in good faith and to his/her disadvantage.
Is there a difference between estoppel and promissory estoppel?
Yes, there is a difference between estoppel and promissory estoppel. Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from arguing something contrary to a claim they previously made or accepted as true, often to avoid unjust consequences. Promissory estoppel, on the other hand, specifically applies when one party makes a promise that another party relies on to their detriment, even in the absence of a formal contract. In essence, promissory estoppel focuses on the reliance on a promise, while general estoppel pertains to preventing inconsistency in assertions.
What is equitable doctrine?
Equitable doctrine refers to a set of legal principles that govern fairness and justice in the resolution of disputes, often applied when strict application of the law would lead to unjust outcomes. These doctrines, such as promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel, allow courts to consider circumstances beyond rigid legal rules to achieve a fair result. Equitable remedies, like injunctions or specific performance, can also be granted when monetary damages are inadequate. Overall, equitable doctrine aims to promote fairness in legal proceedings.
What is a Promissory Estoppel?
The mortgage co. has so many days required by law to respond to the request in writing to establish the pay-off amount of mortgage note with validation if they fail to do so they are in serious violation of statute and are at risk for fines an/or penalities by the state licencing board, etc.! If one party promises to excuse the other party from their duties, but then goes back on this promise in a unfair way, the court may allow this following the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel, established in the case of Central London Property trust v High Trees House (1949).
What has the author Denise Stamper written?
Denise Stamper has written: 'The development of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel'
When promissory estoppel is used by the courts it is because there is NOT an enforceable contract present. true or false?
True. Promissory estoppel is applied by courts in situations where there is no enforceable contract, but one party has made a promise that the other party reasonably relied upon to their detriment. This legal principle aims to prevent injustice by allowing the reliance on the promise to be enforced, even in the absence of a formal contract.
What branch of law deals with collateral estoppel?
Also known as issue preclusion, collateral estoppel is a doctrine that prevents a person from re-litigating an issue once it has been ruled on. Collateral estoppel originated in civil law, but has been applied to federal criminal law.
What is estopel?
Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from arguing something contrary to a claim they previously made or accepted as true, especially if doing so would harm another party who relied on the original claim. It aims to uphold fairness and prevent inconsistency in legal proceedings. There are various forms of estoppel, including equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel, each addressing different scenarios where reliance on a statement or action is at stake. Essentially, estoppel serves to protect the integrity of legal agreements and representations.
I have a complaint along with 100 to 150 people who have a promissory estoppel upon hiring.?
You can file a class action, find an attorney here http://www.lawinfo.com/attorney/Class-Action/
What are exceptions to collateral estoppel?
Exceptions to collateral estoppel include when the party against whom the doctrine is being invoked did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous action, or when there is new evidence that was not available in the previous action. Additionally, collateral estoppel may not apply if the issue in question is of public importance and should be reexamined for public policy reasons.
