Hoffman v Red Owl - Rule Promissory estoppels are only given when there is no contract but one relies in good faith to the performance of the

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc 26 Wis.2d 683 (1965) Fact: Procedural Facts: Operative Facts: A entrepreneur wanted to own a Red Owl Store (grocery store). Red owl then stated that the entrepreneur would have to sell their existing bakery, their grocery store, pay $1,000, and his inventories. The deal didn’t go through because Red owl demanded more money for the start up. Entrepreneur acted in good faith. Issue: Whether or not the court can give the entrepreneur a promissory estoppels.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Rule: Promissory estoppels are only given when there is no contract, but one relies in good faith to the performance of the contract Rational: The entrepreneur was left in an unfair state, after relying on the grocery store’s demands, for the contract to go through. Holding: The promissory estoppels are applicable in this case. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course CONTRACTS 111 taught by Professor Dellinger during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online