{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Hoffman v. Red Owl

Hoffman v. Red Owl - based on reliance and D.’s...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page: 235 Class Notes Case: Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Rule: Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores Sup. Ct. of Wisconsin (1965) J. Currie Red Owl Stores promised Hoffman that they would give him a franchise for $18K. P. purchased a small grocery to gain experience. It was profitable, but Red Owl told him to sell it and move to get experience at one of their stores. Red Owl then asked P. to put 1K down on property for proposed store, and total for franchise was raised to $24,100. Later an additional $2,000 was required and Red Owl demanded that instead of allowing his Father in Law to be a partner, tht he must make his loan a gift. Hoffman then brought action for damages
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: based on reliance and D.’s nonperformance. Judgement ws awarded to P. and D. appeals. Whether the promise necessary to sustain a cause of action for promissory estoppel must embrace all essential details of a proposed transaction between promisor and promisee so as to be the equivalent of an offer that would result in a binding contract between the parties if the promisee were to accept the same. No. Reliance by prommisory estoppel does not have to contain all of the necessary elements to form a contract. Only; reliance, detriment, injustice unless damages are granted, and forseeability of reliance by P....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}