Ricketts v Scothorn

Ricketts v Scothorn

Facts: old guy promises grandkids $, (promissory note), couldn't pay, she quit job, got new job, he paid interest, said would take $ from estate, died, she sued.

Proc: judgement for plaintiff affirmed (said there should have been no jury??)

Issue: is promise enforceable sans consideration?

Holding: yes. promise enforeceable

reasoning:

she gave up work in reliance ; he meant her to do so

"estoppel en pais"

right arising from change in position based on intention of "promissor"

equitable estoppel: unjust b/c she worsened her position in reliance on promise

Class notes:

book differentiates between equitable and promissory estoppel: Sokolow does/doesn't

in book: equitable estoppel -> based on reliance on someone's conduct or statement of fact

Promissory estoppel -> based on reliance on something written in contract or promissory document

he "intentionally" influenced her to quit, but it was not a bargain, still it induced reasonable reliance on her part

in the past, maybe if he didn't intentionally do it, there would be no enforceable promise, but NOW apply objective standard:

obj. stand. : what would a reasonable person in her situation have done in reliance on promise

Different from 19th century tendency to look for a meeting of the minds (ie congruent intentions)

HYPO: what if she had bought a horse after hearing that he had promised her 2000 dollars, what then?

again under meeting of minds, maybe no recourse, but under modern approach, ask if reasonable person would have bought horse.

However, under modern approach, damages can be adjusted, whereas in this case, Katie is basically getting her expectation interest. That is a lot.

What if she only lost a few hundred dollars by not working? Is she really entitled to the whole two grand?

So modern standard favors promissee in that it has an easier standard of reliance BUT may favor promisor by adjusting damages.

Courts will (More LATER)