2 Acceptance At Common law acceptance is unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer Officer Brown unequivocally stated that \u201cI accept your kind

2 acceptance at common law acceptance is unequivocal

This preview shows page 11 - 14 out of 37 pages.

promissory estoppel, or “detrimental reliance.” Formation Formation of a contract requires (1) a valid offer, (2) a valid acceptance of the offer, (3) consideration or a substitute for consideration, and (4) a lack of valid defenses. These four elements create an enforceable obligation. (1) Offer An offer is an outward manifestation of present contractual intent (present intent to enter into a bargain), communicated to the offeree in sufficiently clear and definite terms. (a) Outward Manifestation of present contractual intent/communicated to the offeree Ed stated to Charlie that “I’ll give you a free car wash tomorrow.” Ed manifested present intent to make a promise to Charlie. While this does not demonstrate present intent to enter into a bargain, it demonstrates an offer sufficient to warrant discussion of a consideration issue. (b) Terms The terms of Ed’s “offer” are: Quantity - One (1) Time - Any reasonable time the day after the offer Identity - Ed and Charlie Price - Free Subject matter - Car Wash The “offer” is valid. (2) Acceptance At Common law, acceptance is unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer. Charlie unequivocally replied, “Thanks, I’ll take you up on that.”
-9- (3) Consideration Consideration is bargained[-]for exchange of legal benefit and detriment, which induces the parties to enter into the bargain[.] (a) No Consideration Ed will argue that no consideration supports the agreement because Charlie promised nothing in return, and nothing Charlie promised induced Ed or Charlie to enter into the contract. (b) Promissory Estoppel - Restatement §90 At Common Law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is available to act as a substitute for bargained[-]for consideration. Where it is foreseeable that a gratuitous promise will cause reliance of a substantial character on the part of the offeree, and such justifiable reliance of a substantial character on the part of the offeree, and such justifiable reliance does occur, the promise will be enforce[d] to the extent necessary to prevent injustice. (i)Reliance of a Substantial Character Charlie will argue that he replied on the promise by leaving work and driving for one half hour. Depending on how much these two actions cost him (lack of pay, cost of gasoline, time invested), his reliance may be of a “substantial character.[“] (ii) Foreseeable Reliance Ed may argue that Charlie’s reliance was not foreseeable. However, Charlie stated, “Thanks, I’ll take you up on that,” and in doing so demonstrated to Ed that Ed should expect Charlie to rely on the offer in some way. It is arguable whether reliance “of a substantial character” is foreseeable. (iii) Sufficient Substitute? It is arguable that either argument will succeed, and either may probably win depending on how a judge or jury decided to rule. Conclusion Alice and Officer Brown have no legal recourse against Ed. Charlie may (or may not) have legal recourse in compensation for his detrimental reliance. (c) Conclusion There is no consideration to support this agreement, and Ed’s gratuitous promise may be retracted at any time. No discussion of defenses is needed, because no defenses apply, and with or without

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture