Promissory estoppel is a common law doctrine used by courts to enforce promises that have been made and subsequently relied upon. Most of the time, contract law dictates the terms of how promises should be enforced. Promissory estoppel usually comes into play when there is no formal contract, but the parties involved have nevertheless acted as if there was one. Courts use the doctrine in these circumstances to impose a contract on the agreement, usually in the interest of fairness. - Tarlei Lemos Pereira
I would love to understand more about verbal agreements and employment contracts that disagree with verbal agreements (or agree). Any points in the right direction on who I could hire in the US/Indiana would be appreciated.
This makes it so clear. My textbook (Law, Society and Business by Robert W. Emerson, 2017) says: "Promissory estoppel is a consideration substitute (an equity concept), with no real contract and no real acceptance (the offer is not revocable, because of the offeree's justifiable reliance on the offer). It is a last resort used by the legal system to correct injustices that have slipped through the cracks of established contract laws." This video really put it into perspective, thank you so much!
This is interesting. It seems promissory estoppel in the US operates completely differently than in the UK. Under English and Welsh law, promissory estoppel operates as a shield, not a sword, so could not be used in the way suggested in the video - i.e. to make someone pay. They could not sue at common law (due to the lack of consideration) nor would promissory estoppel operate in equity to enforce the promise.
In British law, however, provided that there existed some sort of consideration, then it may be enforced, I quote: "For example, a car salesman promises not to sell a car over the weekend, but does so, the promise cannot be enforced. If however, the car salesman accepts one pound in consideration for the promise, the promise is binding and enforceable in court. "
+عبدالرحمن الشريف Thanks very much. If you want to let me know more about your goals and interests (you can message or email me) that would be helpful. Best of success to you.
+عبدالرحمن الشريف I'm working on a few evidence videos. One is up now: th-cam.com/video/Un2d_Nq7Z8E/w-d-xo.html Also, if you are interested, I am creating an online course on US law. The course is a still in a preview version but I would be interested in having students comment and give feedback as I develop the course. Here is a link to enroll for free: goo.gl/FmqUg0
In 2010 I was in a dispute with my employer (Federal Government of Canada) over pay. The end result of this dispute was direction from Ottawa which stated that I was to be paid the "highest pay increment" in my substantive position as well as in the Acting positions I would hold. This decision awarded me $3600 in back pay going back to 2008 and then going forward was used for any calculations of my pay. This decision also came with a promise that if I had any other problems with my pay during these Acting situations, that I could have them addressed directly by the render of the decision in my case. In 2013 this changed. The Federal government decided to change the way they calculated "Acting Pay" and thus stated that I no longer qualified to receive the "highest pay increment". From this point on they calculated my pay using the second (lower) pay increment, which essentially cut my Acting pay in half. I greived this but have not been successful. I brought up the 2010 ruling as well, but still no luck. Now in reading up on Estoppel by record, promissory estoppel, I feel that they should apply to my case. It is currently at the second level in our grievance procedure. Do you think I could make this argument of Judgement Estoppel or should I be citing Res Judicata instead?
If there is a promise to do something but nothing is offered in return there is no consideration. When there is no consideration in return then there is usually no contract.
In Continental Europe Law system, agreement of the parties is enough to create a contract (there are limits though which are coming from law) So this video seemed quite interesting to me. I think i will continue to research Anglo-Saxon system.
Even, one sided donation promises are admissible. The only limit of contract law are general rules of law (immoral, illegal etc. articles are nugatory).
Just a curious question, what if the uncle didn’t make a time indication on when he will pay $100 to the girl Patty? Would the court still be able to apply promissory estoppel still?
That's a good question CCC. I think the court would ask whether the promise was definite enough that the reliance was justifiable and whether the uncle should have expected niece to rely on the promise. For example, let's say Uncle said, "If you get a gem you like, who knows, maybe one day I'll pay you back?" I think that sounds too indefinite. But if he said, "I promise to take care of you, go ahead, don't worry, I'll pick up the bill" even without a date, it still sounds pretty definite to me.
So when a company buys out another company and the buying company promises the employees that nothing will change is that promissory estoppel? (More details if needed)
+Josh Gordon I have an older video up - - I don't recall how much I went in depth. th-cam.com/video/oYYG684_ttM/w-d-xo.html If you have specific questions let me know. Also, I do online tutoring one-on-one and group sessions. uslawessentials.com uslawessentials.com/blog
The video title is very misleading. It should be named "US promissory estoppel" as the above-mentioned does not apply e.g. in the UK where the promisory estoppel doctrine exists under the same name "promissory estoppel". The English law requires an existing contractual relationship, which is "amended" by the promise (Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. Cas. 439), and also the promise to be to refrain from enforcement of contractual rights - i.e. a shield, not a sword doctrine (Combe v. Combe [1951] 2 KB 215). None of the above is present in your example, thus the English promissory estoppel would not apply.
So you don't even have to have proof that a verbal promise was made? How does it work then.. does a court just take the plaintiffs word that a promise was indeed made? How is it proved or is it not even needed to be proved? So confused here.
Thanks for the question. Please see this post on the uslawessentials website which I think addresses it. Let me know if you need other information: uslawessentials.com/detrimental-reliance/
For there to be a contract, shouldnt there be intention to create legal relations? Since these two are relatives, the court will presume that the parties do not intend to create legal relations and thus there is no contract.
Chuck, Absent the elements of a contract there would be no contract. Here, there was no consideration so Patty will have to rely on promissory estoppel. As for your other point, relatives can enter into contracts. Whether a court determines that there was an intention to form a contract will be based on the circumstances. For example, let's say defendant offers to sell his car to his brother. The brother accepts but defendant claims he was just kidding. If a court determines that the under the circumstances the parties demonstrated an intention to form a contract, plaintiff should prevail.
but it is also considered an unenforceable contract, since he says she says statements can't be proven, unless recorded. therefore this would be considered a voidable contract.
Hi Soju, you're a bit off track. Proving the existence of a contract or a promise is a different matter. Also, unenforceable and voidable are both terms that have specific meanings but are not the words you are looking for in this context.
So you don't even have to have proof that a verbal promise was made? How does it work then.. does a court just take the plaintiffs word that a promise was indeed made?
Proving a verbal promise tends to be difficult. Of course, the person who made the promise should tell the truth if he recalls making the promise. Sometimes there are witnesses or at least some written records. Perhaps the conduct of the parties demonstrates the existence of the verbal promise. But of course it tends to be easier to prove a written promise.
Something is missing in the video that completely confuses the concept. For promissory estoppel to be invoked, there must already be a pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties. But there wasn't one in the example which makes it seem as if any promise can be binding so long as the other party relies on it, but cases such as Dunlop v Selfridge show this is hardly ever the case
+Talha Ali Dunlop is a UK case and I'm not familiar with it - - doesn't it stand for the proposition that a non-party lacks privity to enforce a contract? l'm not sure I follow what you mean by "promissory estoppel requires a pre-existing contractual relationship."
+USLawEssentials Well, a pre-existing contractual relationship means, for example, if you loaned me some a £ 100 and asked me to return it on, say, 10th November. So when you come to collect the money on 10th november and find that I only have £50. Thus, I ask you to accept it as full settlement of debt and you agree. But since there was no consideration to make your promise binding, you can still sue me for the £50 later. In this context, promissory estoppel can be invoked. Because there was that a "pre-exising contract" among us (The contract for the loan that you offered me), and I had justifiably relied on your promise. But perhaps it might be different in the US system. I am actually studying UK law. I had thought perhaps the legal principles were at least the same in both UK and the US.
+Talha Ali Yes, there are some differences. Also, regarding your first point - - third party enforcement of a contract - - that is possible in the US by a so-called third party beneficiary. I remember looking at this under UK law years ago and my recollection was that the UK did not have a similar principle but I could be recalling incorrectly. Anyway, thanks for your comments.
So you don't even have to have proof that a verbal promise was made? How does it work then.. does a court just take the plaintiffs word that a promise was indeed made?
@@balla2828 Of course you need proof and evidence for everything. That is how the courts operate. But when we're STUDYING law, as opposed to PRACTICING it, we assume that all proof and evidence exists, and thus we're able to discuss the nature of verbal promises as if there's complete evidence to prove them.
Promises without anything in return are not contracts. If I tell you I'll give you $100 tomorrow it's not a contract. If you agree to do something, or to refrain from doing something, in return for the $100, then we would probably have a contract.
But couldn't it be a contract since she followed the terms of what her uncle said, she went and bought the diamond, therefore she fulfilled her bit, isn't it similar to the Carlill v carbolic smoke ball Co
You're perceptive, although I don't think Carbolic Smoke is all that relevant to this case. The idea here is that the niece didn't do anything that was in consideration for the Uncle's promise. Imagine if the Uncle said, "I really want you to stay in college. Don't quit. If this jewelry is what it takes to keep you in college - - go ahead and buy it. Just promise you'll stay in school." This might be an exchange of promises and we'd have a contract. But the niece is simply pining for something and the Uncle gratuitously says he'll cover the cost.
Where is there part where you disclose that attorneys, prosecutors and administrators are on the same team. Lawyers are quack jokes. They tell you to be quiet in court during the whole time you should be objecting. A statement unrebbuted in court stands as fact. Remember that
Well, this is a civil, not a criminal case. You might say, "plaintiff claimed her Uncle was liable to her based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel"; or "the court held that the Uncle was liable under a theory of promissory estoppel"
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
I died at the part when the uncle said, "niah..I changed my mind lmao
I like when she was in there dancing doing the fingers across the eyes, I don't know what that dance move is called.
Promissory estoppel is a common law doctrine used by courts to enforce promises that have been made and subsequently relied upon. Most of the time, contract law dictates the terms of how promises should be enforced. Promissory estoppel usually comes into play when there is no formal contract, but the parties involved have nevertheless acted as if there was one. Courts use the doctrine in these circumstances to impose a contract on the agreement, usually in the interest of fairness. - Tarlei Lemos Pereira
Tarlei Lemos Pereira actually promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine 😑
I would love to understand more about verbal agreements and employment contracts that disagree with verbal agreements (or agree). Any points in the right direction on who I could hire in the US/Indiana would be appreciated.
This makes it so clear. My textbook (Law, Society and Business by Robert W. Emerson, 2017) says:
"Promissory estoppel is a consideration substitute (an equity concept), with no real contract and no real acceptance (the offer is not revocable, because of the offeree's justifiable reliance on the offer). It is a last resort used by the legal system to correct injustices that have slipped through the cracks of established contract laws."
This video really put it into perspective, thank you so much!
Thanks very much for your kind comment. Let me know if other topics interest you. My website is here: uslawessentials.com
I like that definition in Emerson's book, it's something to definitely keep in mind.
fantastic explanation!! thank you!! took me about half hour to understand this concept until I came to your video!!
Very Helpful. I take minutes for a Special District and it came in very handy! Thank you!
This is interesting. It seems promissory estoppel in the US operates completely differently than in the UK. Under English and Welsh law, promissory estoppel operates as a shield, not a sword, so could not be used in the way suggested in the video - i.e. to make someone pay. They could not sue at common law (due to the lack of consideration) nor would promissory estoppel operate in equity to enforce the promise.
In British law, however, provided that there existed some sort of consideration, then it may be enforced, I quote:
"For example, a car salesman promises not to sell a car over the weekend, but does so, the promise cannot be enforced. If however, the car salesman accepts one pound in consideration for the promise, the promise is binding and enforceable in court. "
i'm so confused
@@holaholaholahola0get Contract Law by Brian A Blum
I never comment but thank you so much for the clear explanation!!! I was completely confused until I watched this video!
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I appreciate it.
What an excellent explanation man. Easy way to understand just seeing your video.
reading my books for hours still got confused but this video explained PE with clear example! Thank you son of a beach you
+Joker Final sure!
thank you. You explain this better than all of my professors.
Thanks for watching. I hope it was a useful introduction. If other topics interest you, please let me know. uslawessentials.com
you don't know how much this just helped me!
Great to hear. You might also like my website. uslawessentials.com
Perfectly explained... my all doubts just flew away 👍👍
Thank you from a Canadian law student for your awesome videos! :)
+Sarah Bee Thanks Sarah, I appreciate it.
Love all these animated series, thank you!
Thanks! Please let me know if other topics interest you. uslawessentials.com/blog
This video was so helpful.
Great video, very clear and concise, voice sounds like Kevin Costner
RobertJohn Thanks RJ.
Excellent explanation and example. Thank you
THANK YOU. This video helped greatly in helping me understand this!
This was a great explanation, thanks
wow what anime is this
suits: mike after he moves out of New York
so helpful and clear! thanks
+عبدالرحمن الشريف Thanks very much. If you want to let me know more about your goals and interests (you can message or email me) that would be helpful. Best of success to you.
thank you so much, but in fact i trying to find some videos that expelling the exceptions of hearsay especially ( admissions). thank you
+عبدالرحمن الشريف I'm working on a few evidence videos. One is up now: th-cam.com/video/Un2d_Nq7Z8E/w-d-xo.html
Also, if you are interested, I am creating an online course on US law. The course is a still in a preview version but I would be interested in having students comment and give feedback as I develop the course. Here is a link to enroll for free: goo.gl/FmqUg0
Wow. This was just too easy to understand and follow. Thank you so much :)
Thanks, Edward. If there are other topics that interest you please let me know.
Thank you for explaining this!
Thanks for watching.
Thank you, this was really helpful!
Thanks! Please let me know if other topics interest you.
Oh, and here is a podcast episode that might be helpful: uslawessentials.com/podcast/law-exam-essentials-promissory-estoppel/
@@USLawEssentials thank you so much ! 💞
Thank you very much for this explanation. good job
+Dilliram Paudel You're welcome Dilliram. uslawessentials.com
ur saving my degree thanks xxx
Thank you for this info . This was very informative : )
Thanks! Any other topics that interest you? uslawessentials.com
A simple video that explains the key learning factors. Unlike those textbooks, whole chunk of text mind f*ing you. Great Video!
Thanks BC! Hit those books too though, ok?
Very helpful video. Thanks
Thanks, Dione.
In 2010 I was in a dispute with my employer (Federal Government of Canada) over pay. The end result of this dispute was direction from Ottawa which stated that I was to be paid the "highest pay increment" in my substantive position as well as in the Acting positions I would hold. This decision awarded me $3600 in back pay going back to 2008 and then going forward was used for any calculations of my pay. This decision also came with a promise that if I had any other problems with my pay during these Acting situations, that I could have them addressed directly by the render of the decision in my case.
In 2013 this changed. The Federal government decided to change the way they calculated "Acting Pay" and thus stated that I no longer qualified to receive the "highest pay increment". From this point on they calculated my pay using the second (lower) pay increment, which essentially cut my Acting pay in half. I greived this but have not been successful. I brought up the 2010 ruling as well, but still no luck.
Now in reading up on Estoppel by record, promissory estoppel, I feel that they should apply to my case. It is currently at the second level in our grievance procedure. Do you think I could make this argument of Judgement Estoppel or should I be citing Res Judicata instead?
why was there no consideration in the uncle case?
I am a bit confused
when do we have consideration?
If there is a promise to do something but nothing is offered in return there is no consideration. When there is no consideration in return then there is usually no contract.
These are helpful man. Thanks
Shmada Shmare Thanks Shmada. Let me know if there are other topics that interest you.uslawessentials.com/forum
Thx for the video
Sure! Let me know if other topics interest you. uslawessentials.com/blog
Thank you so much!
I'm very much clear about it now
In Continental Europe Law system, agreement of the parties is enough to create a contract (there are limits though which are coming from law) So this video seemed quite interesting to me. I think i will continue to research Anglo-Saxon system.
Even, one sided donation promises are admissible. The only limit of contract law are general rules of law (immoral, illegal etc. articles are nugatory).
Just a curious question, what if the uncle didn’t make a time indication on when he will pay $100 to the girl Patty? Would the court still be able to apply promissory estoppel still?
That's a good question CCC. I think the court would ask whether the promise was definite enough that the reliance was justifiable and whether the uncle should have expected niece to rely on the promise. For example, let's say Uncle said, "If you get a gem you like, who knows, maybe one day I'll pay you back?" I think that sounds too indefinite. But if he said, "I promise to take care of you, go ahead, don't worry, I'll pick up the bill" even without a date, it still sounds pretty definite to me.
Osm explanation 👍
thank you 😊.
You're welcome!
that eye dance was hilarious
So when a company buys out another company and the buying company promises the employees that nothing will change is that promissory estoppel?
(More details if needed)
good video. The morale of the story: Don't allow anyone to play with you in order to get a sell
Thank you so much. This really helpful.
Thank you. You also might find it useful to visit uslawessentials.com and see whether there are posts there that interest you.
Thanks for the video. Can you go over statute of frauds?
+Josh Gordon I have an older video up - - I don't recall how much I went in depth.
th-cam.com/video/oYYG684_ttM/w-d-xo.html
If you have specific questions let me know. Also, I do online tutoring one-on-one and group sessions.
uslawessentials.com
uslawessentials.com/blog
zindagi badal gayi sir
The video title is very misleading. It should be named "US promissory estoppel" as the above-mentioned does not apply e.g. in the UK where the promisory estoppel doctrine exists under the same name "promissory estoppel". The English law requires an existing contractual relationship, which is "amended" by the promise (Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. Cas. 439), and also the promise to be to refrain from enforcement of contractual rights - i.e. a shield, not a sword doctrine (Combe v. Combe [1951] 2 KB 215). None of the above is present in your example, thus the English promissory estoppel would not apply.
So you don't even have to have proof that a verbal promise was made? How does it work then.. does a court just take the plaintiffs word that a promise was indeed made? How is it proved or is it not even needed to be proved? So confused here.
@@balla2828 exactly my question 😭 like how is it proven?
What’s the difference between promissory estoppel and detrimental reliance?
Thanks for the question. Please see this post on the uslawessentials website which I think addresses it. Let me know if you need other information: uslawessentials.com/detrimental-reliance/
thank you ...sir
Sure!
he oddly sounds alot like joaquin phoenix lol
For there to be a contract, shouldnt there be intention to create legal relations? Since these two are relatives, the court will presume that the parties do not intend to create legal relations and thus there is no contract.
Chuck,
Absent the elements of a contract there would be no contract. Here, there was no consideration so Patty will have to rely on promissory estoppel.
As for your other point, relatives can enter into contracts. Whether a court determines that there was an intention to form a contract will be based on the circumstances. For example, let's say defendant offers to sell his car to his brother. The brother accepts but defendant claims he was just kidding. If a court determines that the under the circumstances the parties demonstrated an intention to form a contract, plaintiff should prevail.
but it is also considered an unenforceable contract, since he says she says statements can't be proven, unless recorded.
therefore this would be considered a voidable contract.
Hi Soju, you're a bit off track. Proving the existence of a contract or a promise is a different matter. Also, unenforceable and voidable are both terms that have specific meanings but are not the words you are looking for in this context.
So you don't even have to have proof that a verbal promise was made? How does it work then.. does a court just take the plaintiffs word that a promise was indeed made?
No, of course there must be proof.
@@USLawEssentials yeah but my question was how would one prove a verbal promise
Proving a verbal promise tends to be difficult. Of course, the person who made the promise should tell the truth if he recalls making the promise. Sometimes there are witnesses or at least some written records. Perhaps the conduct of the parties demonstrates the existence of the verbal promise. But of course it tends to be easier to prove a written promise.
woww...
Something is missing in the video that completely confuses the concept.
For promissory estoppel to be invoked, there must already be a pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties.
But there wasn't one in the example which makes it seem as if any promise can be binding so long as the other party relies on it, but cases such as Dunlop v Selfridge show this is hardly ever the case
+Talha Ali Dunlop is a UK case and I'm not familiar with it - - doesn't it stand for the proposition that a non-party lacks privity to enforce a contract? l'm not sure I follow what you mean by "promissory estoppel requires a pre-existing contractual relationship."
+USLawEssentials
Well, a pre-existing contractual relationship means, for example, if you loaned me some a £ 100 and asked me to return it on, say, 10th November. So when you come to collect the money on 10th november and find that I only have £50. Thus, I ask you to accept it as full settlement of debt and you agree. But since there was no consideration to make your promise binding, you can still sue me for the £50 later.
In this context, promissory estoppel can be invoked. Because there was that a "pre-exising contract" among us (The contract for the loan that you offered me), and I had justifiably relied on your promise.
But perhaps it might be different in the US system. I am actually studying UK law. I had thought perhaps the legal principles were at least the same in both UK and the US.
+Talha Ali Yes, there are some differences. Also, regarding your first point - - third party enforcement of a contract - - that is possible in the US by a so-called third party beneficiary. I remember looking at this under UK law years ago and my recollection was that the UK did not have a similar principle but I could be recalling incorrectly. Anyway, thanks for your comments.
So you don't even have to have proof that a verbal promise was made? How does it work then.. does a court just take the plaintiffs word that a promise was indeed made?
@@balla2828 Of course you need proof and evidence for everything. That is how the courts operate.
But when we're STUDYING law, as opposed to PRACTICING it, we assume that all proof and evidence exists, and thus we're able to discuss the nature of verbal promises as if there's complete evidence to prove them.
David hoca?
Why wasn't the uncles promise seen as a contract?
Promises without anything in return are not contracts. If I tell you I'll give you $100 tomorrow it's not a contract. If you agree to do something, or to refrain from doing something, in return for the $100, then we would probably have a contract.
ohh ok thank you
But couldn't it be a contract since she followed the terms of what her uncle said, she went and bought the diamond, therefore she fulfilled her bit, isn't it similar to the Carlill v carbolic smoke ball Co
You're perceptive, although I don't think Carbolic Smoke is all that relevant to this case. The idea here is that the niece didn't do anything that was in consideration for the Uncle's promise. Imagine if the Uncle said, "I really want you to stay in college. Don't quit. If this jewelry is what it takes to keep you in college - - go ahead and buy it. Just promise you'll stay in school." This might be an exchange of promises and we'd have a contract. But the niece is simply pining for something and the Uncle gratuitously says he'll cover the cost.
ohh ok once again thanks
Where is there part where you disclose that attorneys, prosecutors and administrators are on the same team. Lawyers are quack jokes. They tell you to be quiet in court during the whole time you should be objecting. A statement unrebbuted in court stands as fact. Remember that
So in summary the uncle broke the law of promissory estoppel . Or committed promissory estoppel????
Well, this is a civil, not a criminal case. You might say, "plaintiff claimed her Uncle was liable to her based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel"; or "the court held that the Uncle was liable under a theory of promissory estoppel"
Damn. So every time my parents make me clean my room promising something in return, and I do clean it. I can use promissory estoppel.
HG, good luck with that.
wow
Thanks for stopping by Sakshi
Very informative, but the animations are so uncomfortable lol
Layaway
Thank you for these cute and helpful videos!
Thanks. Website is at USLawEssentials.com. Let me know if other topics interest you.
Thank you for this video! It helped a lot!
+Joshua Vuong Good to hear, thanks. Stay in touch.