 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Hoffman v. Red Owl: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
m (DeRien moved page Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. to Hoffman v. Red Owl: shorten) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*Red Owl owned & operated large grocery stores; it also extended franchises | *Red Owl owned & operated large grocery stores; it also extended franchises | ||
*"Hoffman" = plaintiffs = Mr. & Mrs. Hoffman owned a bakery in Wautoma, Wisconsin; they hoped to enter the grocery business & operate a Red Owl store | *"Hoffman" = plaintiffs = Mr. & Mrs. Hoffman owned a bakery in Wautoma, Wisconsin; they hoped to enter the grocery business & operate a Red Owl store | ||
*A Red Owl agent repeatedly told Hoffman that he only needed $18,000 for a franchise | |||
|procedural_history=Hoffman brought suit against Red Owl for reliance damages (breach of defendants’ representations/agreements) | |procedural_history=Hoffman brought suit against Red Owl for reliance damages (breach of defendants’ representations/agreements) | ||
Revision as of 15:12, November 3, 2023
| Hoffman v. Red Owl | |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 133 N.W.2d 267; 26 Wis. 2d 683 |
| Date decided | March 2, 1965 |
Facts
- Red Owl Stores, Inc. = "Red Owl" = defendant
- Red Owl owned & operated large grocery stores; it also extended franchises
- "Hoffman" = plaintiffs = Mr. & Mrs. Hoffman owned a bakery in Wautoma, Wisconsin; they hoped to enter the grocery business & operate a Red Owl store
- A Red Owl agent repeatedly told Hoffman that he only needed $18,000 for a franchise
Procedural History
Hoffman brought suit against Red Owl for reliance damages (breach of defendants’ representations/agreements)
Trial court found for P → Ordered new trial w/ issue of damages for losses related to the sale of P’s independent grocery store, fixtures, and inventory
Both parties appealedReasons
Here, Defendant's promise to set P up with his own store doesn’t contain all elements sufficient to give rise to enforceable contract but it can still be enforced under promissory estoppel
Rule
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. - Restatement (First) of Contracts § 90
