- Facts: an agent from D had been in negotiations with P to provide P with a franchise of Red Owl for 18K, the price kept going up; P sold bakery and store for capital for the transaction, and purchased an option for a plot of land; D then did not extend franchise to P; P sues for breach of K.
- Holding: Court says no contract b/c neither party reasonably thought they’d arrived at an agreement, only preliminary negotiations. the court held that there was detrimental reliance; Court says §90 implicated here. Remedying misbehavior, tort reliance.
- Commentary: 3 conditions for §90:
- Promisor should reasonably expect to induce action D making promises, representations in taking preliminary steps, opening small grocery store, property, etc.
- Did promise result in action taken by promisee? Court says Yes
- Injustice? Court says yes.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. case brief
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.; (Sup. Ct. of WI, 1965); CB 298; Notes 39
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...