Hey everyone, and welcome back for another deep dive into the
world of law. Today we were talking about
something that could be a little tricky, but I promise it's
really important. It's called promissory estoppel.
Promissory estoppel. Yeah, have you heard of this
one? Yeah.
So promissory estoppel, it's basically like a way for the
courts to like step in and be fair even when there's not like
a formal contract. OK, so it's like a loophole
almost. Yeah, you could think of it like
that. It's like a way to make sure
that someone keeps their word even if they didn't sign
anything official. I see.
OK, so let's say like, I'm in law school, right?
And I make a deal with my roommate to split the rent.
Yeah, but we don't write it down or anything.
It's just like a verbal agreement.
I see where you're going with us.
So then my roommate bails and they don't pay their share of
the rent. Can I use promissory estoppel to
yeah get my money? You might be able to.
It would depend on the specifics of the situation, but that's
exactly the kind of scenario where promissory estoppel could
come into play. Interesting.
So it's not just for like businesses or anything.
No, not at all. It applies to everyday
agreements too. OK, so how does this actually
work in court? So there are like four key
elements that you need to prove. It's like a recipe.
You need all the ingredients for it to work.
All right, let's hear it. I love a good recipe.
So first you need a clear and definite promise, not just like
a vague idea. OK, so not like, hey, maybe I'll
pay you back someday. Exactly.
It has to be specific and unambiguous.
Like I promise to pay you $500 on Friday.
Got it. So clear and definite promise.
That's number one. Yep.
What's next? What else goes in this legal
Stew? The second element is reasonable
and foreseeable reliance. OK, that sounds.
Complicated. It's basically saying that the
person who received the promise actually relied on it.
Yeah. And that the person making the
promise could have reasonably expected that they would rely on
it. OK, so let me try an example.
Jack, go for it. Let's say a friend promises to
give me a ride to the airport, and I don't book a taxi because
of that. OK.
But then they flake on me. That seems like reasonable
reliance, right? It could be, but the court would
look at all the details like did your friend know you didn't have
any other way to get to the airport?
That makes sense. And did you make it clear that
you were counting on them? So it's not just about whether I
relied on the promise, but also about whether my friend could
have foreseen that reliance. Exactly.
It has to be reasonable on both sides.
OK, so we have a clear promise and reasonable reliance.
What's next? The third element is what we
call detrimental reliance. Detrimental reliance.
What does that mean? This one's really important.
It means that you suffered some kind of real harm because you
relied on the promise. OK, so it's not just about being
disappointed or let down. There has to be some actual
damage. Right.
Like financial loss or a missed opportunity?
So, for example, if I was promised a scholarship and then
it fell through and I had to take out extra loans.
Yeah, that could definitely qualify as detrimental reliance.
OK, so we've got the promise, the reliance, and the harm.
What's the final ingredient in this promissory estoppel recipe?
The last element is injustice without enforcement.
This is where the courts get to really consider fairness.
They ask whether it would be fundamentally unjust to let the
promise breaker off the hook. So it's not just about checking
boxes on a legal checklist. There's a human element involved
too. Absolutely.
The courts want to make sure that justice is served even in
situations where there's no formal contract.
OK, I'm starting to see how this all fits together.
Yeah, but I think we need a real life example to really bring it
home. You're right.
Let's talk about a classic case that really illustrates
promissory estoppel. OK, I'm all ears.
Have you ever heard of Ricketts V Scothorn?
Ricketts V Scothorn rings a bell.
I think I might have skimmed it in Torts.
It's a landmark case from 1898, and it's all about a grandfather
who made a promise to his granddaughter.
OK, this sounds juicy. Tell me more.
Well, this grandfather, he really loved his granddaughter
and he wanted her to have a good life.
So we promised to give her a sum of money, enough for her to quit
her job and never have to work again.
Wow, that's quite a promise. What happened next?
Well, the granddaughter, she trusted her grandfather and she
quit her job just like he wanted.
But then tragedy struck. The grandfather passed away
before he could give her all the money.
Oh no. And his estate?
They refused to pay up. They.
They claimed there was no formal contract, so they weren't
obligated to honor the promise. So the question is, did the
granddaughter get left high and dry?
That's the $1,000,000 question. Or did promissory estoppel come
to the rescue? I'm on the edge of my seat here.
Well, the court took a close look at the case and they
decided that all four elements of promissory estoppel were
present. Really.
Let's break it down then. First, do we have that clear and
definite promise? Absolutely.
The grandfather's promise was very specific.
He told his granddaughter exactly how much money he would
give her and what she had to do to receive it.
OK, so clear promise check. What about reasonable and
foreseeable reliance? Could the grandfather have
expected his granddaughter to rely on his promise?
The court said yes. Any reasonable person would have
known that the granddaughter would take her grandfather at
his word and quit her job based on his promise.
So her reliance was totally foreseeable?
Exactly. OK, so we've got the promise and
the reliance, but did the granddaughter actually suffer
any harm? Yes, detrimental reliance.
By quitting her job, the granddaughter gave up her income
and financial security. That's a big.
Deal it is. And the court recognized that as
a real and tangible harm. All right, so that's three
elements down. What about the final element?
Injustice without enforcement Did the court think it would be
unfair to let the estate off the hook?
I mean, come on, It seems pretty clear that, yeah, siding with
the estate wouldn't exactly be. Just, I mean, come on, it seems
pretty clear that yeah, siding with the estate wouldn't exactly
be just. You're right, and the court
agreed. They ruled in favor of the
granddaughter, saying that it would be a grave injustice to
allow the estate to benefit from the grandfather's promise
without actually honoring his commitment.
Wow, Ricketts V. Scotthorne is a powerful
example. It really shows how promissory
estoppel can ensure fairness even when there's no formal
contract. It's a classic case for a
reason. It demonstrates the court's
willingness to look beyond the strict letter of the law and
consider the human element. So Rickettsby, Scotland, that
was back in 1898. That's right.
Does promissory estoppel still apply today?
Absolutely. It's a legal principle that's
still very much alive and well. OK, good to know because I have
a feeling we'll be seeing it pop up again and again.
You're probably right, it's a versatile tool that can be used
in a variety of situations. So what are some other examples
of how promissory estoppel might play out in the real world?
Let's think about the world of employment for a moment.
Imagine a company promises an employee a promotion if they
land a big client. The employee works really hard,
puts an extra hours, and they finally secure the client.
But then the company backs out of the deal.
That's the worst. It is, and that's where
promissory estoppel could come in.
If the employee can show that they relied on that promise and
suffered some kind of harm, like turning down other job offers or
incurring expenses, they might have a case for promissory
estoppel. So it's about holding companies
accountable for the promises they make to their employees.
Exactly what? About In the nonprofit world, I
imagine promises play a big role in fundraising.
You're absolutely right. Imagine a nonprofit is working
on a big project, like building a new Community Center.
They get a huge donation pledge from a wealthy donor and they
start making plans based on that promise, but then the donor
suddenly backs out. Oh no, that could be devastating
for the nonprofit. It could, and in that situation
promissory estoppel could potentially protect them.
If they can demonstrate that they relied on that donation
pledge and suffered real harm because of the donors change of
heart, they might be able to enforce the pledge.
So it sounds like promissory estoppel is a pretty powerful
tool. It is.
It's a way to ensure fairness and prevent injustice.
And it's not just a dusty old legal concept.
It's something that can have real world implications, Yeah,
in a variety of situations. Exactly, and for all you law
students out there, promissory stopple is definitely a concept
you want to have a solid understanding of.
I'm starting to see why. It seems like it touches on some
fundamental ideas about trust and keeping your word.
You're getting it. It's about recognizing that
promises have real weight, even when they're not written down in
a formal contract. That makes me wonder what would
happen if we lived in a world without promissory estoppel.
Oh, that's a good question. What if the only promises that
mattered were the ones in official contracts?
That would definitely change things.
Think about all the everyday agreements we make with friends
and family. Would we have to write a
contract every time we made plans to meet for coffee?
That would be a little ridiculous.
It would, and it would probably make us a lot less trusting of
each other. So promissory estoppel, it's
about more than just the law. It's about maintaining trust and
fairness in society. Exactly.
It's a reminder that our words have power and that we should be
held accountable for the promises we make.
I like that. And on that note, I think we're
going to have to wrap things up for today.
Sounds good, but before we go, I want to leave our listeners with
one final thought. OK, hit me with it.
Think about this, Could society function properly without the
concept of promissory estoppel? That's a good one.
I may have to ponder that. All right, everyone, that's all
the time we have for today's deep dive, but I hope this is
giving you a good overview of promissory estoppel and a little
bit to think about. We'll catch you next time.
See you then for another deep dive into the fascinating world
of law all. Right, so we're talking about
Ricketts Viscothorn. Yeah, the case of the generous
grandfather. Right.
So the court had to figure out if all four elements of
promissory estoppel were there. OK, let's start with the first
one. Was there a clear and definite
promise? Oh, absolutely.
The grandfather was very specific about how much money he
was going to give his granddaughter.
OK, so that one's easy. Yeah, no question there.
What about the second element? Reasonable and foreseeable
reliance, right? So could the grandfather have
reasonably expected that his granddaughter would rely on his
promise? Good question.
Well, the court said yes. They said any reasonable person
would have known that the granddaughter would quit her job
based on that promise. So basically, the grandfather
should have known that his promise would have real
consequences? Exactly.
OK, so we've got the promise and the reliance, but did the
granddaughter actually suffer any harm?
That's the third element, remember?
Detrimental reliance. Right.
And in this case, the harm was pretty clear.
How so? Well, by quitting her job, the
granddaughter lost her income and financial security.
That's definitely a detriment. It is, and the court recognized
that. So it's three elements down.
Yep, just one more to. Go injustice without
enforcement. Right, That's the big one.
Would it be fundamentally unfair to let the estate get away with
breaking the promise? Well, this case it seems pretty
obvious. I agree, and the court thought
so too. They ruled in favor of the
granddaughter. They said it would be a grave
injustice to allow the estate to benefit from the grandfather's
promise without actually honoring his commitment.
Wow, Ricketts V Scothorn, what a case.
It really is a landmark decision.
It shows how promissory estoppel can protect people even when
there's no formal contract. And it highlights the court's
willingness to consider fairness and justice.
So OK, Ricketts V scoff on that was way back in 1898.
A long time ago. But does Promissory Estabo still
apply today? Oh, absolutely.
It's a legal principle that's still very much in use.
That's good to know because I have a feeling we're going to be
seeing it again and again. You're probably right, it's a
very versatile concept. It can be applied in all sorts
of situations. So tell me, what are some other
examples of how promissory estoppel might play out in the
real world? OK, let's shift gears for a
second, yeah, and think about the world of employment.
OK, employment law always gets me.
It's a big one. So imagine this.
A company promises an employee a promotion.
You know if they land a big client.
The classic dangling carrot. Exactly.
So the employee, they work really hard, they put in long
hours and they finally close the deal.
Nice work. Right.
But then the company backs out of the promotion.
Oh no, classic bait and switch. It happens more often than you'd
think. So what can the employee do?
Well, that's where promissory estoppel could come in handy.
OK, how so? If the employee can prove that
they relied on that promise of a promotion, yeah, and that they
suffered some kind of harm as a result, they might have a case.
What kind of harm are we talking?
About like maybe they turned down other job offers or they
incurred expenses, you know, relocating or something, things
like that. So promissory estoppel can
protect employees from shady employers.
You could say that. OK, what about nonprofits?
I imagine promises are a big deal in fundraising.
Absolutely. Think about it.
A nonprofit is working on a big project, let's say building a
new Community Center. OK, I'm following.
So they get a huge donation pledge from a wealthy donor and
they start making plans based on that promise.
But then what if the donor backs out?
That's the nightmare scenario, right?
It is. That could be devastating for
the nonprofit. It could, and that's where
promissory esople could come in. It could potentially protect the
nonprofit from the fallout of a broken promise.
So if the nonprofit can prove that they relied on that pledge
and that they suffered real harm because of the donors change of
heart, they might be able to enforce the donation.
So promissory Stopple, it's not just for businesses, Yeah.
Or individuals? Nope.
It can also protect nonprofits. So it seems like Promissory is
stopple. It's a pretty powerful tool for
ensuring fairness. It really.
Is and it's not just some abstract legal concept, it has
real world applications. Absolutely.
It's about recognizing that promises matter.
And it can make a real difference in people's lives.
Exactly. I'm starting to see why this is
such an important concept. It is.
It's about upholding trust and ensuring that people are held
accountable for the commitments they make.
You know, it makes me wonder, what's that?
What would happen if we lived in a world without promissory
estoppel? A world without promissory
estoppel. Yeah, what if only formal
contracts mattered and verbal promises were basically
meaningless? That's a really interesting
question. Think about it.
All those everyday agreements we make with friends, family,
colleagues. Would we have to write a
contract every time we made plans to meet for lunch?
I guess so. It would be a different world
for sure. Yeah, it seems like it would be
a lot less trusting, a lot less spontaneous.
Definitely. So maybe promissory estoppel.
It's not just about the law, it's about preserving something
fundamental about how we interact with each other.
You're right, it's about maintaining a sense of trust and
ensuring that our words have meaning.
I like that. Yeah, what kind of make you
wonder? Like, would people even make
promises anymore? Right.
Like what would be the point if they didn't have any real
weight? It's like that old saying, a
promise is a comfort to a fool. But maybe promissory estoppel is
what keeps those promises from becoming foolish.
I think you're on to something. Because it injects that element
of accountability. Right.
It's like a safety net for those who rely on promises in good
faith. So as we wrap up our deep dive
today, what's the key take away you want our listeners to
remember? Well, I'd say, remember, this
promissory is stoppable. It's more than just a legal
concept. It's a reminder that the law is
designed to uphold fairness and protect those who rely on
promises, even when those promises aren't written down.
I like that. So basically, don't just assume
that a promise is meaningless just because it wasn't in a
formal contract. Exactly.
Promissory Stoppel might be the key to getting justice.
All right, everyone, that's all the time we have for today's
deep dive, but I hope this is giving you a good understanding
of promissory estoppel and maybe even inspired you to think a
little differently about the power of promises.
Until next time, keep those legal minds sharp and we'll
catch you on our next deep dive into the fascinating world of
law. See you then.