Title.
[US-WI] [US - Wisconsin]
Last week, I accepted a W-2 contract position to work through an employer for a 3rd party client.
My offer was rescinded this morning after I already accepted the offer, signed a contract, provided a W-4, etc. The stated reason was an HR mistake, someone pressed accept instead of deny apparently.
I turned down another job offer and rejected two final-round interviews in the few days since the initial offer as I believed I had already passed all contingencies.
I believe this may be potentially be a breach of contract, promissory estoppel on the part of my new employer.
Any advice? Do I have recourse here? This situation will cause me to be unemployed for an undefined period of time.
Whatever happened to promissory estoppel
Title says it all. I simply don't get it. My textbook defines it as "an equitable doctrine which can prevent a person going back on a promise which is not supported by consideration".
But how can a valid, legally standing contract be formed if there's no consideration? There's also other definitions that mention the other party relying on that promise.
A case that goes with this is that of Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947). But I'm not entirely sure what's going on in this case either... As in, the legal issue. My textbook also states that it undermines the rule set out in Pinnel's case (1602) and Foakes v Beer (1884). Why is that?
Any help is appreciated.
I understand the idea of even if there wasn't a contract, words have power and people should be able to rely on them and just arbitrarily pulling the rug off of someone is bad. But to what extent is it a promise?
For example: lets say Game Developer A has an official Twitter account where an employee logged into the account says you can use the in game music (that they made) for free as long as you give proper credits in response to a person asking. Would it be different if it was a private message vs publicly asking? Here, at least in this case within this hypothetical, its clear that at least for this case its permissible. Now lets say the company develops a practice of doing this each time someone asks, but doesn't write it down on their official, public facing website. Could it be argued that there is a de facto policy to allow the usage generally?
Now what if they say its permissible for personal, noncommercial use only. Does that prohibit someone from uploading to Youtube, even with ads turned on? Now I know some contracts will specifically address this grey area.
Now what if the Game Developer A actually posts a link to a YouTube video containing the music. Does that count as an endorsement or recognition or merely a convenience link ? Does it depend on how its shared? Giving an award recognizing the quality or importance to the game community counts as an official endorsement right?
Now what happens if say they are located in the UK and I'm in the USA
Is the answer to all of this it depends?
(Originally, I had a specific game developer in mind I was asking out of curiosity, then I poked around their website and found a contract, which I had fun reading)
A person in the /r/attorneytom subreddit posed a question about whether it is possible to sue over a cancelled wedding invitation in order to recover the cost of a plane ticket and hotel room. I did some googling and it seems like it fills the requirements for bringing a promissory estoppel suit. Where I hesitate is every promissory estoppel case I've seen involved some sort of business arrangement. Can it be applied to broken promises within the context of a personal relationship? Does that ever happen?
I'm in the early stages of studying LLM, and am really stuck on this super important part of contract law! This is not a homework request, rather an invitation to legal debate. I tried to initiate something similar with my classmates, but had no takers...
Company 1 received an order worth £100,000 from Company 2. Company 2 stated that the order had to be completed in 6 months. Four months later, Company 1 realises it won't be able to complete the contract on time unless it increases its workforce by five, thereby making the contract with Company 2 unprofitable. So Company 2 agrees to increase the contract price by £20,000. Company 1 was only able to find two extra workers, so the boss tells the employees that they would all be paid £500 extra if they ensured the contract was completed in time. The employees agreed, and the work was done on time. Company 2 then turns round to say its customer had gone into liquidation and it no longer needs Company 1's product. What's more, Company 2 can only afford to pay Company 1 £80,000. Company 1 accepts this, and tells the employees that they will not receive £500 after all.
There's so much going on here that my head is spinning! I managed to get my head around offer and acceptance okay: Company 2 offered to pay £100,000 for a product to be completed within six months, and Company 2 accepted. But where is the consideration ("price for the promise") here? Doesn't Company 1 (the promisor) also have to give something to Company 2 (the promisee) in order to make the contract valid?
When Company 1 realises that it won't be able to complete the contract in time, isn't it immediately in breach of contract? Could Company 2 have sued to get the whole £100,000 back in damages? We studied Roscorla v Thomas (1842), in which an added guarantee was deemed to be unenforceable without consideration. I fail to see the consideration when Company 2 agrees to pay an extra £20,000 for Company 1 to complete the work on time.
The part of this case I am most confident about, however, is that the employees can sue for the £500 each they were promised for getting the work done in time! Company 1 made them an offer, and they accepted. That said, I guess some Victorian-minded lawyer could claim that the employees were merely carrying out their normal contractual duties, as in Collins v Godefroy (1831), and thus have no right to sue. Surely equity would be on the side of the employees, tho
... keep reading on reddit ➡I make a deal with Business A stating that I will by 100 Chairs from them for $1,000, but I need the chairs by 10/31, no exceptions. I inform them if I do not receive the chairs by 10/31, I will have to shut down by business and lose profits and production time. I also inform them that if they are unable to get the chairs to me by 10/31 and they know this beforehand, they must let me know by 9/15 so I have time to order replacements.
Business A did not let me know of any changes on 9/15 and I believed they would live up to the deal, however on 10/31, I received no chairs and my company went out of business.
Is this an example of Promissory Estoppel? Would I need a written contract to enforce this?
Thanks for any help you can offer guys.
I noticed an unusual term in my SOs offer letter. It stated something to the effect that the signee agrees that the signee is not relying on the offer for moving etc etc.
This sounded like a clear attempt to avoid any claims of promissory estoppel. Taking the job means we would have to move cross country to California so this term stood out to me. Is that actually enforceable? Would this have to go through arbitration if that was another This is an employment offer not an employment contract.
An adult daughter called a local restaurant to place a large delivery order. The restaurant generally requires a credit card for all delivery orders, but the daughter’s father, who is a regular at the restaurant and happened to be there when the daughter placed the order, told the clerk that, in the event the daughter failed to pay for the food, he would do so. The restaurant delivered the order to the daughter, who, having decided to order something else instead, refused to accept or pay for the food.
Can the restaurant collect from the father?
A No, because the father’s promise was made orally.B No, because a third party will not be held liable for the contract obligations of another.C Yes, because the father promised to pay.D Yes, because a parent is liable to pay for necessities provided to a child.
SUBMIT ANSWER
Sorry, that's not the best choice.
The answer you selected is not the best choice in this situation.
Answer choice A is correct. The Statute of Frauds applies to suretyship agreements (i.e., one person’s promise to pay the debts of another). Here, the daughter ordered food and was obligated to pay for the food. However, the father also promised to pay for the food if the daughter did not. This promise created a suretyship agreement. Since this agreement was not in writing, the restaurant cannot enforce it. Note that some oral suretyship contracts can be enforced (indemnity contracts and contracts wherein the surety’s main reason for paying the debt is the surety’s own economic advantage), but those circumstances are not present here. Answer choice B is incorrect because third parties may be liable for the debts of another if they agree to be sureties. In such cases the surety agreement must generally be in writing. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the father did promise to pay for the food if his daughter failed to do so, the Statute of Frauds applies to a suretyship agreement. Since the agreement was not in writing the father’s promise is unenforceable. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although a parent is liable for necessities, such as food, provided by a third party to a minor child, a parent is not liable for necessities provided to an adult daughter or son.
A friend of mine recently left a job on the promise of going back to a former workplace. After her notice had ended her former workplace pulled the job last minute.
Is there anything that can be done about this?
I'm wondering if I could have a meritorious claim for damages against the company I used to work for because they promised me they would pay for a bar exam in a state I had never lived in if I signed-up and took it.
Here's the story: Last year after graduating law school from the University of Florida and passing the Florida Bar in February 2018, I got offered a job at a start-up commercial cannabis company in Seattle, Washington. The Cannabis Company was fairly well-known in the Seattle area but was trying to expand into new markets. They had partnerships with people in Hawaii and Arizona and had recently acquired licenses to operate in Iowa, Oregon, and California. I was told they needed a good lawyer who could help them as they grew and expanded into new territory and was promised that I would be getting in on the ground floor of a company about to be worth billions.
I moved across the country and started working in their Development Department, writing applications for new operational licenses in new jurisdictions and states under the supervision of a Patent Lawyer who was not licensed in the state and held an expired Oregon license (he was the only other attorney in the company at the time). They quickly saw how good I was at writing and began assigning me contracts to draft and other projects to tackle. I even helped the company negotiate and write-up the first collective bargaining agreement between a retail cannabis company and organized labor in the state of Washington. I eventually got moved to the Human Resources department when a new HR Director was hired.
In the HR department, I began running the entire company's legal compliance team. Workers in all of the states we operated--California, Oregon, Iowa, Hawaii, and Washington--were constantly calling and asking what laws meant and how they should operate to remain compliant with the law.
In early November of last year, I talked with the HR Director and the Chief Opperational Officer of the company about taking the Washington state and California Bar exams. They said they wanted me to take both of them, so the company could have a lawyer licensed in all the states they operated. Califronia was non-reciprical, but Washington is part of the UBE, so passing that exam would allow me to get licensed in every state the company was in. They said the company would pay for the exams and pay to get me licensed. (Nothing was said about paying for study materials or classes.)
Because the Washingtom
... keep reading on reddit ➡What about if you quit your job in another state and find out before moving that the offer has been rescinded?
Just curious. Currently I have a job offer in Washington and I live in the Bay Area. I am paranoid that if I quit my job and accept this offer that it will for some reason be rescinded and I will be left stranded, destitute, and unable to collect unemployment.
Are my concerns valid?
https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/78fwyq/hyuga_will_no_longer_be_attending_ccc2/
Here's a summary of the controversy:
Hyuga, a Mexican Smash player, was banned for a year for the sexual assault of another player, which he admitted to but the victim declined to press charges. He served a 1-year ban from U.S. events.
Recently Hyuga decided to come back to the U.S. after his ban, and asked the tournament organizers of a Houston tournament (Clutch City Clash 2) if he could attend. They affirmed that he could come, then today changed their position to ban him, after he's ostensibly already spent a considerable amount of money to travel to the U.S.
This got my /r/legaladvice senses tingling.
Would he have an actionable case for promissory estoppel? From http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp it seems like he would, but I'm not sure.
Could a foreigner even file such a suit?
Hello legal minds of Reddit! I have a few hypotheticals about my favorite collectible card game, Magic: The Gathering and their policy of not reprinting certain cards.
Link to the relevant MTG policy: Reserved List Policy
My understanding is the reason Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast (makers of Magic) maintain this policy is due to promissory estoppel.
- How permanent is the policy as a result?
- If they gave collectors a large amount of lead time to know the list may go away in the future, would they still be causing detriment to collectors sufficient for litigation?
- How practical is it to sue Hasbro for loss of collection value as a private collector (e.g., my collection is currently worth roughly $15K, if they change this policy and my collection becomes worth $3K, would they owe me the difference)?
- How would these valuations be determined in court if need be?
Thanks for any thoughts on the matter -- I understand none of you are my attorney, nor would any responses to this scenario create any attorney-client relationship.
I'm no legal expert, and I'm sure many of the people over at FFTF and other net neutrality groups are. I'm just wondering for my own curiosity here. I've recently learned about promissory estoppel, a legal doohickey that enforces promises as if they were contracts. Could this work in favor of Net Neutrality, since many ISPs have promised to continue to abide by the NN standards after June 11?
"A owes B $100 payable on Day 4. On Day 1, A mowed B's lawn. On Day 4, B says to A, "Since you mowed my lawn, forget about the $100 you owe me. Consider the debt discharged." B now seeks to recover $100."
I have already discussed past consideration and concluded that B can recover the money. But should I also mention the possibility of promissory estoppel if A acted in detrimental reliance of B's promise?
I have my first mid term coming up for Contracts. I'm a little stressed and trying to study. It's only going to be covering consideration, pre-existing duty rule, promissory estoppel and moral obligation. Thanks!!!
I play a physical game where the company will not reprint some key pieces because they said they wouldn't back in the 90's. The company has basically had to invent other ways of playing only with new pieces because of something called promissory estoppel. Wouldn't that count in this case as the game companies took money while promising one thing then deliver another?
I’m reviewing my outline, and noticed that when discussing promissory estoppel, we didn’t discuss the UCC at all, which is odd because my professor is a big fan of the UCC. After a bit of research, I’m not finding anything on promissory estoppel, except a couple articles by scholars saying courts shouldn’t interpret promissory estoppel into the UCC.
Can someone clear this up for me? Does the UCC recognize promissory estoppel or not? Thanks!
Contracts final tomorrow - I'm very confused as to how/why forbearance is a separate issue from promissory estoppel.
From my current understanding, promissory estoppel involves forbearance, in terms of "I'm promising to forbear from exercising this legal right, and you don't have to give me any consideration back for it", and I end up taking action on it, and then the other party can use promissory estoppel as a defense, i.e. "No, I already relied on your representation saying you would forbear from exercising that right - I don't have to do that".
Am I an idiot?
