Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case: Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. (1965, WI) [pp. 435-443]
Facts: Lukowitz (as agent for Red Owl) made an agreement with Hoffmans that Red
Owl would build a store and stock it with merchandise in return for P's putting up
$18,000. In reliance on this agreement, Hoffman sold his bakery and grocery (which
was only a temporary experiment to gain experience in the grocery business); they
also rented a house in Chilton where they thought they were going to move.
Basically, Hoffman let Red Owl know he could only get $18,000, and he received
assurances like “everything is ready to go, get your money together and we are
set.” Then, the situation kept chaning and ultimately Red Owl asked for $34,000,
and which $13k investment from P's father-in-law in exchange for being a partner
was going to be an outright gift . At this point, Hoffman said he couldn’t go
along with this. They had negotiated but had not reached final agreement on all
details at the time P withdrew from negotiations. There was no contract ever
made, but P acted in reliance of D's promises.
Issue: What kind of damages can be awarded when no contract was ever made, but P
acted in reliance of D's promises?
Reasoning: Although the details of the agreement weren't all established, they
are enough to satisfy a claim of reliance via promissory estoppel (which says that
reliance can substitute for consideration and allow enforcement based on
reliance). Rest §90 does not require that in order to use PE the promise has to
be definite. It only requires that (1) the promise is of the type that promisor
should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and
substantial character on the part of the promise, (2) the promise induced such
action or forbearance, and (3) injustice be avoided only by enforcement of the
promise. The first 2 questions are the be determined by the jury and the jury in
this case found in favor of P. The last question requires court’s discretion, and
it finds that justice can only be avoided if P is compensated.
Damages: Since there was no contract, the damages are limited to those
necessary to avoid injustice - reliance damages.
□ Reliance damages awarded $3,265 for the selling of the bakery
and his moving costs, etc.
® Also included: Chilton option (the ground he would buy),
moved to another city to rent an apt.
□ P can get difference between fair market value of store and the
price he received
® But need more info on fair market value (new trial
granted for this) P had to sell quickly, and didn’t get as much as he should have.
RULE:
· A party can be held liable w/o a K, if they induced reliance on part of other
party prior to making of a definite K.
· Promissory estoppel can be used to recover damages in absence of a clear
contract and finalized details.
· damages are limited to “those necessary to avoid injustice”
***This case highwater mark for promissory estoppel – considered extreme (common
law doesn’t usually impose duty of good faith in negotiations) – diff from Baskin
Robbins b/c there was a K to bargain in good faith, but here, no K to bargain in
good faith, but duty still imposed – K to negotiate in good faith IMPLIED
Notes