Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since no information about this has been provided, what assumptions are you making about the detrimental reliance? What did the promisee do that was to his detriment?
I must have missed this. In what post # is this information found?
There was no meeting of the minds. What exactly would be enforced?
I don't make an assumption; though, for the sake of argument I provide an example to show how the principle of promissory estoppel could work. In fact, I explicitly state that more details need to be known before a conclusion can be drawn one way or the other. What I do caution against, however, are claims from you that the OP is not and cannot be under any legal obligation to perform under this circumstance. You (and I) do not know that, but a solid legal theory is available (if the facts support) that could hold the OP responsible for his promise/agreement to sell the land to the neighbor's son's friend. Btw, it would be nice if you didn't cut off a very relevant part of my comment when attempting to rebut what I wrote/make your case. Indeed, you speak about assumptions being made by me, but then leave out the part of the paragraph where I wrote: "Of course, there is much more that needs to be known before such a conclusion would be reached with any certainty in this matter."
And, again, whether there is a meeting of the minds is irrelevant as it is not necessary for the principle of promissory estoppel to apply and to compel a promisor to follow through on his promise. I do not mean to be confrontational (and that's neither my intent or demeanor as I write this), but you do not know what you're talking about here.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 03-04-2018 at 03:08 AM..
Hmmm. . . That certainly doesn’t sound like “I spent $XXXXX as a result of relying on your promise. I need the court to fix this so that I am not unduly burden as a result of relying on your “promise.””
And, again, you still don't have all the facts in this case. Therefore, to tell the OP that he is not and cannot be under any obligation to adhere to his promise by law is premature at best.
I don't make an assumption. In fact, I explicitly state that more details need to be known before a conclusion can be drawn one way or the other. What I do caution against, however, are claims from you that the OP is not and cannot be under any legal obligation to perform under this circumstance. You (and I) do not know that, but a solid legal theory is available (if the facts support) that could hold the OP responsible for his promise/agreement to sell the land to the neighbor's son's friend.
And, again, whether there is a meeting of the minds is irrelevant as it is not necessary for the principle of promissory estoppel to apply and to compel a promisor to follow through on his promise.
So what exactly would the court compel the OP to do? The only thing that has been established is that the OP said she would sell the property. Would the court simply make up terms that it deemed were appropriate? There are no conditions of sale that could be compelled/enforced, nor is there ANY evidence of detrimental reliance.
If your point is simply that there are conditions under which promissory estoppel would be appropriate, I agree. However, none of those conditions exist, based on the OP’s posts.
So what exactly would the court compel the OP to do? The only thing that has been established is that the OP said she would sell the property. Would the court simply make up terms that it deemed were appropriate? There are no conditions of sale that could be compelled/enforced, nor is there ANY evidence of detrimental reliance.
If your point is simply that there are conditions under which promissory estoppel would be appropriate, I agree. However, none of those conditions exist, based on the OP’s posts.
It all depends. Specific performance (i.e. forcing OP as the promisor to sell the property to the neighbor's son's friend) is generally disfavored by courts, but it is more so an option when we're talking about the sale of land. More likely, a court would compel a party in the OP's situation to pay monetary damages (if there were any). But these are only the range of options. I have no idea whether the neighbor's son's friend suffered any monetary damages or if he reasonably and detrimentally relied on the OP's promise.
Also, the OP promised that she would sell the property and at a specific price.
That there is no evidence (per the OP's posting) of detrimental reliance does not mean that there is NOT evidence of detrimental reliance. Apart from detailing the neighbor's son's friend's reaction to the OP telling him about the new offer, there is no attempt by the OP to discern what the impact of the OP's promise to sell the property to the neighbor's son's friend was. This is why I stated that more needs to be known (specifically, the neighbor's son's friend's side of the story) before coming to a conclusion one way or the other. Barring the neighbor's son's friend's side of the story being told, it is premature for you or anyone else to tell the OP that she does not or cannot be compelled to perform/see her promise through.
I did agree on a price and then proceeded to survey, then the second neighbor asked the surveyor what was going on. It is right across from him so he offered an outrageous sum to keep his privacy.
So you and the young man had agreed on a price, correct?
Did you tell your employer that the land was already spoken for? I am assuming that you did, but I want to be sure. What did he say to make you feel that your job would be at risk if you honored your original agreement?
This is interesting to me. Even if the kid ordered a log cabin kit to put on the land or contracted with a 7-11 to build a store, don't you think any judge would expect him to tell the seller at the time of the agreement or even after the agreement was broken? Unless he had something to hide from the seller.
It all depends. Specific performance (i.e. forcing OP as the promisor to sell the property to the neighbor's son's friend) is generally disfavored by courts, but it is more so an option when we're talking about the sale of land. More likely, a court would compel a party in the OP's situation to pay monetary damages (if there were any). But these are only the range of options. I have no idea whether the neighbor's son's friend suffered any monetary damages or if he reasonably and detrimentally relied on the OP's promise.
Also, the OP promised that she would sell the property and at a specific price.
That there is no evidence (per the OP's posting) of detrimental reliance does not mean that there is NOT evidence of detrimental reliance. Apart from detailing the neighbor's son's friend's reaction to the OP telling him about the new offer, there is no attempt by the OP to discern what the impact of the OP's promise to sell the property to the neighbor's son's friend was. This is why I stated that more needs to be known (specifically, the neighbor's son's friend's side of the story) before coming to a conclusion one way or the other. Barring the neighbor's son's friend's side of the story being told, it is premature for you or anyone else to tell the OP that she does not or cannot be compelled to perform/see her promise through.
I own some land that a neighbor's son's friend always wanted and I told him I would eventually sell it to him. Recently I decided to do it and as soon as the surveyor started, another neighbor, whom I am employed by, offered me triple of what I would have sold it for.
And post #8:
Quote:
I did agree on a price and then proceeded to survey, then the second neighbor asked the surveyor what was going on. It is right across from him so he offered an outrageous sum to keep his privacy.
Now, we don't have the specific dollar amounts from this thread, but this makes it pretty clear that there were dollar amounts discussed, both via the original promise and via the offer of the employer.
Because there is a "meeting of the minds" with the first buyer and OP then took action (survey) my opinion still stands that OP should consult with an attorney before making a decision to protect himself.
Agree whole heartedly! Soap and water was made for little boys! And girls who are tomboys!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
