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) (Created page with "''Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.'', 133 N.W.2d 267, 26 Wis. 2d 683 (Wis. 1965). {{Cases Stub}} Category:Cases:Contracts") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|court= | |||
|citation= | |||
|subject= | |||
|appealed_from= | |||
|case_treatment=No | |||
|overturned= | |||
|partially_overturned= | |||
|reaffirmed= | |||
|questioned= | |||
|criticized= | |||
|distinguished= | |||
|cited= | |||
|followed= | |||
|related= | |||
|facts= | |||
|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 appealed | |||
|issues= | |||
|arguments= | |||
|holding= | |||
|judgment= | |||
|reasons=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 | |||
|comments= | |||
|case_text_links= | |||
|Court_opinion_parts= | |||
}} | |||
''Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.'', 133 N.W.2d 267, 26 Wis. 2d 683 (Wis. 1965). | ''Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.'', 133 N.W.2d 267, 26 Wis. 2d 683 (Wis. 1965). | ||
Revision as of 17:12, September 30, 2021
| Hoffman v. Red Owl | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | |
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
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 133 N.W.2d 267, 26 Wis. 2d 683 (Wis. 1965).
| This is a case brief stub. |
| You can help by adding to it. |
