{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Greiner v. Greiner

Greiner v. Greiner - Frank’s part Rule Restatement 90...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 10/1 Protection of Promisee Reliance Greiner v. Greiner, Kansas Supreme Court, 1930 Facts : Maggie Greiner commenced an action against her son, Frank Greiner, to recover possession of a quarter section of land and an additional tract of 80 acres. Frank answered that his mother had given him the 80 acre tract and that she could not reclaim, but she should convey it to him. Peter Greiner, Maggie’s husband, disinherited Frank from his will. Maggie wanted to correct this. Maggie had Frank come to Mitchell County where the land was. She wanted to give him money, but he wanted land and a place to live. She said okay. He said he would move back. Procedure : district court ordered plaintiff to execute a deed conveying the 80 acre tract to defendant. Issue : whether Mrs. Greiner sufficiently expressed a promise to Frank when he came down to see her in response to the letter from Nicholas. Holding : judgment affirmed. Her promise induced a definite and substantial action on
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Frank’s part. Rule : Restatement § 90; Promissory estoppel Roy Notes : Why no consideration? Because it was a gift. Mrs. Greiner didn’t get anything in return. There was no bargained-for exchange. § 90- A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires. *Requirements for promissory estoppel : 1. There must be a promise 2. Promisor must reasonably be able to foresee reliance 3. Promise must actually produce detrimental reliance 4. injustice avoided only if enforcement of promise “Detrimental reliance” – plaintiff must be able to say “I am worse off now because of my reliance on the promise.”...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}