Promissory estoppel is a theory of agreement law that serves to avoid a promisor from averting their responsibilities under a guarantee. This is especially appropriate in cases of quantum meruit, which is a legal idea utilized to identify a sensible payment for services rendered. In order to be thought about legitimate, a promissory estoppel needs to satisfy the following requirements:
1. The guarantee should be affordable and unambiguous.
2. The pledge needs to have been trusted by the promisee.
3. The pledge needs to have triggered the promisee to suffer a hinderance.
The Washington Post just recently released a post on the application of promissory estoppel in the context of quantum meruit. In this post, the author analyzed 2 leading Supreme Court cases to show how promissory estoppel can be utilized to bind a promisor to a pledge, regardless of their efforts to avert the commitments it enforces.
The very first case talked about by the author was the 1987 Supreme Court choice in Pennsylvania v. United States Airways, Inc. In this case, the Court discovered that the accused was bound by a promissory estoppel. The pledge made by the offender had actually been sensible and unambiguous, and the complainant had actually suffered a hinderance by depending on the pledge. The Court held that the accused was bound to its responsibility.
The 2nd case talked about by the author was the 2008 Supreme Court choice in Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, Inc. In this case, the Court discovered that the accused was not bound by a promissory estoppel. The pledge made by the offender was not sensible or unambiguous, and the complainant had actually not suffered a hinderance by counting on the guarantee. The Court held that the offender was not bound to its responsibility.
The short article concluded by summing up the ramifications of the 2 cases. The author argued that the Pennsylvania choice highlights the value of the affordable and unambiguous nature of the pledge, while the Merit Management choice highlights the requirement for the promisee to have actually suffered a hinderance in order for the promissory estoppel to be legitimate. Eventually, the short article serves to show how promissory estoppel can be utilized as a way of imposing a pledge in cases of quantum meruit.
.
