Cato promises Isabella $40,000 if she graduates from State College. Isabella enrolls in State, attends full-time for four years, and graduates. When she asks Cato for $40,000, he says, "I don't remember promising you $40,000. But if there was a promise, it's not enforceable, because we didn't bargain for it. And even if there was a promise that would otherwise be enforceable, I revoke it now." Can Isabella enforce Cato's "promise"? Why or why not?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Cato's promise is binding and Isabella is entitled to payment without regard to whether their performance was bargained for. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel (or detrimental reliance), a person who relies on the promise of another may recover in the absence of consideration if (1) the promise was clear and definite, (2) reliance on the promise was justifiable, (3) the promisor knew or had reason to believe that the promisee would rely on the promise, (4) the reliance induced a change of a substantial and definite character, and (5) justice would be better served by enforcement of the promise. In this question, there was a promise on which the promisee relied, the reliance was substantial and definite (the promisee went to college full-time for four years, incurring considerable expenses, and graduated), and it would only be fair to enforce the promise.