Wright v. Newman

Wright v. Newman - seeking support from the natural father....

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 10/3 Protection of Promisee Reliance – Implied Promises Wright v. Newman, Georgia Supreme Court, 1996 Facts : Wright is the father of Newman’s daughter but not her son. However, the trial court said he established a parent-child relationship with the son, gave him his surname, and was listed on the birth certificate. Newman wants him to pay child support for both kids. Wright just wants to pay for his true daughter. Procedure : trial court said he must pay child support for both children. Issue : whether Wright can be held liable for child support for Newman’s son under Georgia contract law Holding : this court affirmed; Wright promised Newman and her son that he would assume all the obligations of fatherhood, including providing support. Newman and her son relied to their detriment on this promise because they refrained from identifying and
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: seeking support from the natural father. If Wright were allowed to evade this promise, injustice would result. Rule : promissory estoppel. Class Notes : 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. Reliance must be DETRIMENTAL change of position for the worse; had the promise not been made, I wouldve taken another action that would make me better off. Implied Promise based on actions Reasonableness you have to prove promissory estoppel by showing that your reliance was reasonable...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online