A man promises to give his friend $1,000 as a gift. The friend, believing the promise, quits his part-time job thinking he will no longer need the income. The man later refuses to give the friend the money. On what basis, if any, might the promise be enforced?
The friend relied on the promise and experienced a detriment.
The promise was based on a prior consideration.
The friend provided a benefit to the man based on the promise.
The promise was part of an agreement between the two.
The correct answer is based on the principle of reliance, specifically promissory estoppel. The friend's reliance on the promise led him to suffer a detriment by quitting his part-time job. Promissory estoppel applies where reliance is foreseeable and enforcement is necessary to prevent injustice. The option involving providing a benefit is incorrect because restitution or benefit conferred typically involves cases where a measurable benefit is given to the promisor, which did not occur here. The option stating a promise as part of an agreement is incorrect because no actual agreement was reached between the parties. The option about prior consideration is wrong because consideration must be a present or future act, and past actions do not satisfy this requirement.
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.