The doctrine of promissory estoppel is the exception to the rule. The doctrine of consideration is important in all contracts, as it refers simply to an agreement that is legally enforceable. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is the exception to the contract consideration rule. The legal principal of estoppel keeps a party from alleging a fact or acting in a certain An estoppel certificate is a legal document used to clarify certain facts as true of a Home Owners' Association (“HOA”) requires some special handling . Related to estoppel: estoppel certificate, Equitable estoppel, Promissory estoppel was equitably estopped from arguing that the Mexican marriage was invalid. . estoppel may in some cases oblige in the absence of CONSIDERATION.
The question remaining to be discussed, then, is whether, in addition to making Betsy Bomann's separate ancillary promise binding as a contract capable of being attributed to defendant, promissory estoppel will bar defendant from asserting the Statute of Frauds to deny enforceability of that otherwise binding promise.
Simultaneously, however, this Court noted in Lawrence v. Chase that even if such would be the rule in a "suit at law", a court of equity could provide "remedy against the fraud thus attempted.
Chapman v. Bomann
Chase statement that on principles of equity among which estoppel would be included a defendant may be barred from asserting the policy of the Statute of Frauds to deny enforceability to a separate, ancillary oral promise, otherwise binding, to sign as a writing an agreement which, lacking such signature, the Statute of Frauds in terms renders unenforceable.
This limitation upon the penumbral policy applicability of the Statute of Frauds is conceived to be a particularized application of the general equitable principle that since it is the purpose of the Statute of Frauds to prevent fraud, that Statute cannot be permitted to be itself an instrument of fraud. A misrepresentation that there has been such satisfaction if substantial action is taken in reliance on the representation, precludes proof by the party who made the representation that it was false; and a promise to make a memorandum, if similarly relied on, may give rise to an effective promissory estoppel if the Statute would otherwise operate to defraud.
Stephenson, 15 AlaskaF. This principle, perceived many years ago in the generalized discussion in Lawrence v. Chase, supra, we now reaffirm as the law of Maine. We adopt it as it is formulated in Comment f. In further clarification of this exposition of Maine law we address specifically the phrase in Comment f.
While the existence of such subjective intention would be sufficient to preclude assertion of the Statute of Frauds, other circumstances can also be sufficient. The criterion signified by the words "if the Statute would otherwise operate to defraud" is whether all the particular circumstances in which the separate ancillary promise to sign or execute a sufficient memorandum is made show, objectively, that a fraud, or a substantial injustice tantamount to a fraud, would be perpetrated upon the promisee were the promisor allowed to assert the Statute of Frauds as a bar.
In the present situation the affidavits sufficiently indicate that the defendant's wife, as a joint tenant with defendant of the realty at issue, was told 1 plaintiffs were about to make a substantial change in their financial position in connection with the already existing oral agreement for the sale and purchase of the land, 2 before plaintiffs did this, they wanted to know whether defendant would sign the document which plaintiffs had already signed.
Fully aware of what plaintiffs were seeking, defendant's wife gave exactly the confirmation being sought, promising that she and her husband would sign the purchase and sale agreement as a writing and return it to the real estate broker involved in the transaction. These circumstances give rise to genuine issues of material fact concerning whether defendant's wife, by conduct attributable also to defendant, actually intended or reasonably should have expected that the promise made would induce plaintiffs to make a substantial change in their financial position, a change which plaintiffs in fact made in reliance upon their justifiable belief that the absence of a writing was not to be a matter of concern.
In sum, the totality of the circumstances depicted in the record precipitate general factual issues material to whether it would be grossly unjust and, therefore, tantamount to a fraud on the plaintiffs to allow defendant to assert the Statute of Frauds, by invoking the penumbral policy rather than the actual terms of the Statute, to bar enforceability of the separate ancillary promise for the making of a sufficient writing. By defendant's compliance with that order, the Statute of Frauds would be rendered inapplicable to the principal sale-purchase agreement between defendant and plaintiffs, and plaintiffs would be in position to continue seeking enforcement of it as alleged in their complaint.
See 21 Turtle Creek Square, Ltd. Appeal sustained; judgment for defendant set aside; remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. He has joined the opinion as Active Retired Justice. This Court twice remanded the case because the present appellants had purported to appeal from the judgment deciding the merits of the complaint against them before a disposition had been made of other aspects of the case Rule 54 b M. Subsequently, by stipulation, judgments were entered dismissing the complaint as to Chapman-Hall Realty as well as the counterclaim of the defendant.
Thereafter, defendant claimed that plaintiffs had still failed to take a proper appeal. Defendant's contention was that plaintiffs had failed to comply with a provision of the order of remand specifying the manner in which the appeal was to be returned to this Court.
This continuing controversy as to the propriety of the appeal was not resolved until November 21, when the parties ultimately stipulated that the instant appeal was to be heard on the record originally before this Court, a supplemental record and the briefs originally submitted.
Defendant's brief seems to admit that such was the fact, at least for the purposes of the disposition of the present appeal. On the initial walk-through of the property, it was noted on the lease that there was some damage to a light fixture in the store. When a buyer of the property presents an estoppel certificate for Bob to confirm the terms of his lease, he signs after making a cursory scan of the document.
When Bob moves out of the space at the end of the lease term, he expects to receive his full deposit back.
Because Bob did not bother to ensure the tenant estoppel certificate contained the correct deposit amount, as well as a record of the previously damaged light fixture, he is unlikely to be successful in a small claims action requesting his full deposit. In most states, an estoppel letter from the HOA is required to be included in the escrow documents.
The letter should also specify any future assessments that are projected or in progress.
Doctrine of Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
Related Legal Terms and Issues Acquiescence — agreement or consent through silence; acceptance by failing to object. Egregious — extraordinarily bad.What are the different types of estoppel?
Fraudulent Intent — a false statement or deceptive act made with the intent to deceive the victim. Litigation — the process of taking legal action; the process of suing someone, or trying them for a criminal act. Promissory — containing, implying, or having the nature of a promise.
Representation — a statement or account made to someone to influence their actions or opinion.
Doctrine of Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
The value of one promise is not equal to the value of the other. As it stands, the court will not currently compare the estimated value of each promise made. The doctrine does not currently take the mutual promise of equal value into account.
Promises make it difficult to perceive value or factual benefits. There remains a lot of debate as to whether or not the current doctrine of consideration is fair or outdated. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an alternative to the doctrine of consideration.
It refers to a contract that cannot be withdrawn because one party acted on the other parties' promise. In most cases, one party was harmed or served injustice because of the broken promise that they relied on. The promissory estoppel acts as a legal shield against the other's claim, even though they did not give any consideration.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is the exception to the contract consideration rule. It implies that a contracted promise is enforceable by law even without any consideration present.
It is important, however, to understand that the promissory estoppel can only be used as a legal defense and not to initiate a legal claim. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is currently used in the United States legal system but the specific rules and regulations of it vary by state and jurisdiction. It is often viewed as a modern law and is reserved for very specific legal situations.