- Facts: D, subcontractor, provided P, general contractor, with a quote for piping, which P relied on for his prime bid. After D awarded K, P said that pipes would be different specs than required. Did not meet specifications, rejected by project engineers. P had to get pipes from another subcontractor, cost $39k more.
- Issue: is the bid enforceable?
- Holding: Ct said no acceptance of P’s part, so no K. BUT Court invokes doctrine of promissory estoppel. Judgment for P – recovered reliance damages of $39k.
- Rule: Promissory estoppel, Rsmt § 90. To prevail in an action under § 90, P must establish: (1) a definite promise was made by the D with the reasonable expectation that it would induce action of a definite and substantial character on P’s part; (2) that P had acted in justifiable reliance upon the promise to its detriment; (3) that injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
- Commentary: 2nd issue of whether statute of frauds is a defense to claim based on theory of promissory estoppel. It’s not b/c the SoF relates to the enforceability of contracts; promissory estoppel relates to promises which have no contractual basis and are enforced only when necessary to avoid injustice.
- Rstmt solution: § 87: Option Contracts
Friday, March 23, 2012
Janke Construction Co. v. Vulcan Materials Co. case brief
Janke Construction Co. v. Vulcan Materials Co.; (7th Cir., 1976); CB 599; Notes 35
Promissory estoppel fills the gap between offer and acceptance
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...