This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: he was now able to work full time. Katz said he couldnt work full time at age 70. Procedure : trial court found for Dare on all 3 suits. Trial court said Katz did not give up anything to which he was legally entitled when he elected to retire. He didnt suffer any detriment or significant change of position when he elected to retire because he wouldve been fired otherwise. There was no injustice because he received $40,000 and paid vacation. Issue : whether Dare is promissorily estopped from quiting pension payments to Katz. Holding : reversed and remanded. Rule : three requirements of promissory estoppel: (1) promise, (2) detrimental reliance on such promise; (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Promissory estoppel does not require that an individual give up something to which he is legally entitled. Class Notes :...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/10/2011 for the course LAW 501 taught by Professor Roy during the Fall '08 term at Ole Miss.
- Fall '08