1. George Mason School of Law
Contracts I
I. Promissory Estoppel
F.H. Buckley

2. Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
If you could, would you abolish the consideration doctrine?

3. Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
If you could, would you abolish the consideration doctrine?
What kinds of promises should not be enforced without a consideration?

4. What is Estoppel?

5. What is Estoppel?
Estoppel by representation of fact (equitable estoppel in the US)
Promissory estoppel (equitable estoppel in GB)

6. What we’ll look at An ideological battle?
Varieties of Promissory Estoppel
The Material Benefits Rule
Option Contracts

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

8. Estoppel: An Ideological Battle?
Grant Gilmore, The Death of Contract (1974)

9. Restatement § 90(1)
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

10. Restatement § 90(1)
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

11. Distinguish four kinds of duties
Things you should do even if you don’t promise (e.g., pay taxes)

12. Distinguish four kinds of duties
Things you should do even if you don’t promise (e.g., pay taxes)
Things you should do because you promised to do so, and provided consideration

13. Distinguish four kinds of duties
Things you should do even if you don’t promise (e.g., pay taxes)
Things you should do because you promised to do so, and provided consideration
Things you should do because you promised, and the promisee has relied, and 90(1) is triggered

14. Distinguish four kinds of duties
Things you should do even if you don’t promise (e.g., pay taxes)
Things you should do because you promised to do so, and provided consideration
Things you should do because you promised, and the promisee has relied, and 90(1) is triggered
Things you should do because you ought to do them and have promised to do so, notwithstanding the absence of consideration or promisee reliance

15. The fourth kind: Restatement § 90(2)
A charitable subscription or a marriage settlement is binding under 90(1) without proof that the promise induced action or forbearance

16. Charitable Subscriptions
I promise you $10,000 but renege. Is my promise enforceable?

17. Charitable Subscriptions
I promise you $10,000 but renege. Is my promise enforceable?
On the basis of the promise, you’ve bought a car? Enforceable?

18. Charitable Subscriptions
I promise you $10,000 but renege. You happen to be a charity. Is my promise enforceable?

19. She’ll feel differently when the cheque bounces

20. Charitable Subscriptions
What about Restatement § 90(2)
A charitable subscription or a marriage settlement is binding under 90(1) without proof that the promise induced action or forbearance
Just how would one have showed reliance in such cases?

21. DeLeo at 156
Why didn’t § 90(2) work?

22. DeLeo
The storage room? So what are you going to get for $25K?

23. Restatement § 90(1)
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

24. Charitable Subscriptions
You and I meet and agree that we will both donate $5,000 to a third party.
I give. You don’t. Are you liable?

25. Charitable Subscriptions
You and I meet and agree that we will both donate $5,000 to a third party.
I give. You don’t. Are you liable?
To whom?

26. What would action or forbearance look like?
I pledge $500,000 to a college which promises to name a scholarship after me.

27. Charitable Subscriptions
Cardozo in Allegheny College p.157
Where was the consideration?
Allegheny College

28. Charitable Subscriptions
Why do you think most courts refuse to adopt Restatement § 90(2)?

29. Charitable Subscriptions
Which rule produces more charitable giving?

30. Charitable Subscriptions
Why so few such cases?

31. George Mason School of Law
Contracts I
I. Promissory Estoppel
F.H. Buckley

32. Restatement § 90(1)
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

33. Family Promises

34. Family Promises Do they deserve special consideration?
If so, which way does this cut?

35. Haase v. Cardoza p.164
Was the promise supported by consideration?

36. Haase v. Cardoza p.164 Was the promise supported by consideration?
Did Alice really stiff Rose and Loretta?

37. Haase v. Cardoza p.164 Was the promise supported by consideration?
Did Alice really stiff Rose and Loretta?
“During a period of illness”

38. Haase v. Cardoza Was the promise supported by consideration?
What about reliance? A change of position?

39. Ricketts v. Scothorn p.166

40. Ricketts v. Scothorn
Was consideration given by Katie for the promise?

41. Ricketts v. Scothorn Was consideration given by Katie for the promise?
“He looked for nothing in return”

42. Ricketts v. Scothorn Was consideration given by Katie for the promise?
No promise to do or refrain from doing anything
Is this consistent with Hamer v. Sidway?

43. Ricketts v. Scothorn
Why did the grandfather renege (even before he died)?

44. Ricketts v. Scothorn
Why did the grandfather renege (even before he died)?
“If he could sell his farm…”
Let Katie work for Funke and Ogden as a bookkeeper

45. Ricketts v. Scothorn
Was there reliance by Scothorn?

46. Ricketts v. Scothorn Was there reliance by Scothorn?
“Having intentionally influenced the plaintiff to alter her position for the worse … it would be grossly inequitable to permit … the executor … to resist payment”

47. Ricketts v. Scothorn
What was the remedy?

48. The measure of damages
Time 1
What do we need to give Katie to make her as well off as he would have been had the promise not been made, or had he not relied?
C 100,0 D B
100, 100 A
50, 50 50 I
100 I DR 50
100

49. Family promises
Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability?

50. Family promises Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability?
And why might he not want to do so?

51. Family promises
If we enforce them all, do we make promisees better off?

52. The Employment Context

53. The Employment Context
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer p.173
What was the promise and why was it made?

54. The Employment Context
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer p.173
What was the promise and why was it made?
Was there consideration?

55. The Employment Context
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer p.173
What was the promise and why was it made?
Was there consideration?
Cf. Restatement § 86 on past consideration

56. The Employment Context
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer
What was the promise and why was it made?
What was the reliance?
What would count as reliance?

57. The Employment Context
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer
What was the promise and why was it made?
What was the reliance?
Did she leave her job right away, like Katie Scothorn?

58. The Employment Context
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer
What was the promise and why was it made?
What was the reliance?
How old was she in 1947?
And for how much longer did she work for Pfeiffer?

59. The Employment Context
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer
What was the promise and why was it made?
What was the reliance?
What if she had quit because she was too ill to work?

60. The Employment Context
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer
What about the equities of the case?

61. Why a different result in Hayes? P. 177

62. 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

63. 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. (So?)

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

65. Promises to insure
You DID insure, didn’t you Rhett?

66. The Typical Case Spiegel at 190 Insurer: Met Life Agent: Levy
Insured: Spiegel

67. Geremia at 186
Did the lender promise to insure the car?

68. Geremia at 185 Did the lender promise to insure the car?
And if it didn’t, did Geremia reasonably rely that it would do so?

69. Geremia at 185 Did the lender promise to insure the car?
Cf. Restatement 90, comment e: “applied with caution”

70. Varieties of Promissory Estoppel
Chartable Subscriptions
Family Promises
Employment Contracts
Promises to insure
So why were we thinking in categories?

71. The Rationale for Liability
The case where the promisor invited reliance?

72. The Rationale for Liability
The case where the promisor invited reliance?
The case where he didn’t, but the promisee relied anyway
The “reliance monster”

73. The Rationale for Liability
The case where the dollars are huge?

74. Distinguish four kinds of duties
Things you should do even if you don’t promise (e.g., pay taxes)
Things you should do because you promised to do so, and provided consideration
Things you should do because you promised, and the promisee has relied, and 90(1) is triggered
Things you should do because you ought to do them and have promised to do so, notwithstanding the absence of consideration or promisee reliance

75. The Material Benefits Rule
Webb v. McGowin p. 193
W.T. Smith Lumber Co., Chapman AL

76. The Material Benefits Rule
Webb v. McGowin
J. Greeley McGowin

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

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

79. The Material Benefits Rule
Webb v. McGowin
Treat this as a promissory estoppel issue. Was there promisee reliance here?

80. The Material Benefits Rule
Webb v. McGowin
Recall Bailey v. West
Is Webb a suitable case for relief in quasi-contract?
If so, why?

81. The Material Benefits Rule
Webb v. McGowin
What did the promise add?

82. Restatement § 86 Promise for Benefit Received
§ 86(1) A promise made in recognition of a benefit previously received by the promisor from the promisee is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice.
86(2) A promise is not binding under Subsection (1)
(a) if the promisee conferred the benefit as a gift or for other reasons the promisor has not been unjustly enriched; or
(b) to the extent that its value is disproportionate to the benefit

83. The Material Benefits Rule
Webb v. McGowin
Can you distinguish it from Mills v. Wyman: p.193?

84. The Material Benefits Rule
Webb v. McGowin
Can you distinguish it from Mills v. Wyman?
What about Boothe v. Fitzpatrick (p. 199)

85. The Material Benefits Rule
Why do you think this is called the “material” benefits rule?

86. Restatement § 86 Promise for Benefit Received
§ 86(1) A promise made in recognition of a benefit previously received by the promisor from the promisee is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice.
(2) A promise is not binding under Subsection (1)
(a) if the promisee conferred the benefit as a gift or for other reasons the promisor has not been unjustly enriched; or
(b) to the extent that its value is disproportionate to the benefit

87. Pitching ideas: The double trust problem
Desny v. Billy Wilder at 194

88. Pitching Ideas Pitching ideas: Desny v. Wilder
Was this simply a valid (conditional) contract?
What if the secretary had not promised?

89. Pitching Ideas Pitching ideas: Desny v. Wilder
Was this simply a valid (conditional) contract?
What if the secretary had not promised?
Worner Agency at 196