Ricketts v. Scothorn

• Ms. Scothorn = plaintiff = "Scothern" = a book-keeper who quits her job based on the promise of her grandfather = granddaughter of Rickets
• Granfather Rickets = granfather who wanted his children to be aristocrats with the option of working without having to
• Grandfather gave a promissory note bearing a sum of money so that Scothern would be required to work to live comfortably
• Grandfather died 2 years after making the promise to Scothern
• "Ricketts" = defendant = the executor of her grandfather’s estate

• Scothern sued the executor of Rickets ("Rickets") for the outstanding balance on her promissory note.
• Scothern won in the trial court in Nebraska.
• On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court decided that Scothern & her grandfather hadn't signed an enforceable contract.

Does foreseeable reliance on the mere promise of a gift make the promise enforceable, even without consideration?

The judges in the Nebraska Supreme Court opined that although the grandfather didn't want Scothern to not have to work, he didn't stipulate that she quit her job. Thus, his promise lacked consideration.

Yes. If someone foreseeably relies on a promise, the promisor can be prevented from arguing lack of consideration.

Justice Sullivan: Rickets (the executor since the grandfather had passed away) is estopped from claiming that there was no consideration because Scothern detrimentally relied on the promise.

Affirmed

• Contracts_Ayres/9th_ed._Outline#F._Reliance

• Contracts_Farnsworth/Outline#Chapter_1:_Introduction_to_Contracts_and_the_Bases_for_Enforcing_Promises