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.
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation
Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement.Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien.Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.
Exam • Writing by laptop • Four questions, Two hours…
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?
Haase v. Cardoza • Was the promise supported by consideration? • What about reliance?
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?
Haase v. Cardoza • What about reliance? • Present Restatement § 90 conditions relief: “injustice can be avoided only by enforcement.” • What does that mean?
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
The Employment Context • Feinberg v. Pfeiffer • What was the promise and why was it made?
The Employment Context • Feinberg v. Pfeiffer • What was the promise and why was it made? • What was the reliance?
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?
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
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)
Chartiable Subscriptions • You and I meet and agree that we will both donate $5,000 to a college • Consideration?
Chartiable Subscriptions • I pledge $1,000,000 to a college which promises to name a building after me • Consideration? Allegheny College Allegheny College
Chartiable Subscriptions • Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell • Did Salsbury rely on the subscription? • Restatement § 90(2)
Chartiable Subscriptions • Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell • Are you satisfied with the rationale?
The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin • Recall Bailey v. West • Is Webb a suitable case for relief in quasi-contract?
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?
The Material Benefits Rule • Webb v. McGowin • Treat this as a contracts case. Is there a consideration problem?
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 • Webb v. McGowin • Treat this as a contracts case. Is there a consideration problem? • The past consideration rule • The material benefits rule: • Restatement § 86
