O is an old lady who makes an offer to D, her daughter in law. The offer: “I am an old annoying woman and I need someone to take care of me. If you come live with me and take care of me, I will leave you my house when I die.” D accepts the offer by moving and beginning care taking responsibilities. Soon after, D can’t take O’s lip and begins to slap her around. O then kicks D out of the house and makes arrangements to leave her house to another family member. What are the rights of the parties? Specifically, can O recover damages for the costs of obtaining a new care taker based on a promissory estoppel claim?
1L here. Would like answer to this as well, but wouldn’t this fall under the statute of frauds?
good point…assume it is satisfied.
Two issues here…
A) There is consideration between the parties, thus forming the basis for a contract. Promissory Estoppel only applies in instances where there is no consideration
B) Promissory Estoppel requires there to have been reliance interest accumulated in anticipation of the promise. What was O’s reliance?
Promissory Estoppel can apply when a party reasonably relies on a promise to his or her detriment in the situation where the K is otherwise unenforceable. There is consideration and if the K had been completed, it would be enforceable under K with consideration theory. However, the K was not completed because it is unilateral and is only enforceable upon completion of performance. The performance was not completed because O kicked D out.
O relied on having her care taking problem solved at the price agreed upon. Obviously to get damages there must be damages, so assume it is going to cost her more to get another care taker. Can she get the difference?
I guess the reliance was reasonable. Proving reliance damages would be difficult though…I don’t know what she could say?
Typically promissory estoppel requires a promise. This is a unilateral K. The daughter in law isn’t compelled to perform. What possible argument could be made for PE?
Couldn’t you use PE or Unjust Enrichment because the contract couldn’t be enforced due to Statute of Frauds or that it was too indefinite?
If she reasonably relied on the promise to her detriment…was there a promise to begin with? An implied promise? Is beginning performance of a unilateral K an implied promise? As I understand it, beginning performance on a unilateral k creates an option. I don’t know if that’s relevant here though.
yeah… professor seems to think there is on to be made.
Who was enriched? The old lady that got slapped around? And damages…is the daughter in law’s replacement is going to cost more than a house?
You could argue the old lady that got slapped around yes. She got care for however long the care was for.
It’s a shitty house in a bad part of town.
The old lady caused the problem when she voluntarily kicked the daughter in law out.
The agreement never provided for the daughter to come take care of her AND not slap her around. It simply said “come take care of me”. D did so, O kicked her out of O’s own accord.
Promissory estoppel would require reliance on a promise to one party’s detriment. The daughter never made a promise to the old lady, she just acted, so the old lady can’t establish the promise requirement.
If anything, I think that the daughter might have PE claim, because O promised her the house if she moved and cared for her and the daughter picked up and moved, and then O gave her the boot and not the house.
This is a pretty crappy situation to try to apply promissory estoppel, honestly. The elements just don’t seem to be met.
EDIT: There might be some sort of quantum meruit/unjust enrichment issue here, that the old lady got the services of the daughter and didn’t have to pay.
Your first point is patently untrue. O has agreed to give over her house upon death, and in exchange D has agreed to provide care for O. The parties have bargained, considered, and formed a contract. Period. A unilateral promise places no burden on the promisee. How can you possibly say that about this agreement?
I agree with this. There was consideration and bargain, an contract was formed. D breached, O should have the right to terminate the contract. D could sue in quantum meruit for services provided, but recovery is limited to value of services provided - damages caused by the breach (cost of cover). I don’t know how you would calculate the damages though because it was not a term contract.
I don’t know how PE would apply. We were taught PE is to fill the gap left by the bargain theory. Here there is bargain, consideration, and contract. So contract rules/actions should govern. PE is for substitution for consideration, or breach, or equities, none of which seems to apply here.
I totally read the hypo wrong. I didn’t realize you were talking about the breaching party using Promissory Estoppel.
You’re confusing unilateral contract with illusory promise. An illusory promise has no consideration whatsoever and is not a contract, e.g. “Next year I’ll give you $10,000 for college.” A unilateral contract is a contract that only becomes enforceable on completion of an action.
yup
There is no consideration problem here. i.e. if it was a bilateral K it would be enforceable under K w/ consideration. It is unilateral, so it is not enforceable until the performance is rendered.
Also, in return for the house, O has not agreed to provide care, she has accepted by beginning to render care. Hence, unilateral.
Boone v. Coe - Statute of Frauds