Hoffman v. Red Owl: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|appealed_from= | |appealed_from= | ||
|overturned= | |overturned= | ||
|partially_overturned= | |partially_overturned= | ||
Revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023
| Hoffman v. Red Owl | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | 133 N.W.2d 267 26 Wis. 2d 683 (Wis. 1965) |
| Date decided | 1965 |
Procedural History
Ps brought suit against Ds for reliance damages (breach of defendants’ representations/agreements) TC 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
