A contractor agrees to install a security system in reliance on a property owner's promise to cover costs incurred. Later, the property owner refuses to pay, claiming there was no formal agreement. The contractor may enforce the property owner's promise based on the theory of promissory estoppel.
The theory of promissory estoppel allows a promise to be enforced in the absence of a bargained-for exchange when the promisee reasonably relied on the promise to their detriment, and enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice. In this scenario, the contractor reasonably relied on the property owner's promise by incurring costs. This reliance was foreseeable, and refusing to enforce the promise would result in unjust harm to the contractor. The promise is enforceable despite the lack of a formal contract.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are the elements of promissory estoppel?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
When might promissory estoppel be applied in contract law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does promissory estoppel differ from other contract doctrines?