Speaker 0 00:00:00 Steve, what you promised me. I relied on your promise. Yeah, you knew I was gonna rely on your promise. And now I just spent several hundred dollars on this new fancy, fancy Mike.
Speaker 1 00:00:16 Yeah, I'm really sorry about that, man. I know that's convenient.
Speaker 2 00:00:21 Yay. All present having business before the honorable the Supreme court of the United.
Speaker 0 00:00:27 Welcome to the us law essentials law and language podcast, the legal English podcast for non-native English speakers that helps you improve your English, listening, improve your legal English vocabulary and build your knowledge of American legal culture. Hi, this is Daniel. And before we begin today's episode, I wanna remind you that us law essentials offers online courses in legal English, and online courses in us law. Our courses are designed for international attorneys, students, translators, and bar candidates. If you have any questions, please
[email protected]. Also, please visit
[email protected] and join us on Facebook and LinkedIn. Welcome to the us law essentials law and language podcast. I'm Daniel Edson
Speaker 1 00:01:27 And I'm Steven Horowitz.
Speaker 0 00:01:29 And today we're continuing our law exam essential series in which we talk about topics essential to law school exams and the bar exam. And today we continue our discussion on topics relevant to contract law. Specifically, we're gonna be focusing on promissory estoppel,
Speaker 1 00:01:52 Promissory estoppel. Is that like, were you promised to stop doing something?
Speaker 0 00:01:59 You know, Steve, despite your inaccurate definition of the legal term, I have to say I'm really persuaded and impressed, I think because of just how SOS and beautiful your voice sounds over your mic.
Speaker 1 00:02:17 Oh wow. Thank you. You, you, you, you make me feel so good even though you just insulted me. Uh <laugh>. Well, this microphone is, is it's a great microphone. Uh, it's a Sampson Q2 U um, do you don't have one?
Speaker 0 00:02:34 I don't have one, but you know, and they're not even a sponsor unlike Johnny Depp, but yeah, I, I would love to get one in fact, um, yeah, I'm, I'm really envious.
Speaker 1 00:02:45 Oh, well, Dan, I want you to sound as good as I sound so, you know, I'll give you the money. You, you get one and I, I will give you, I think it's a few hundred dollars on and, you know, uh, I promise to give it to you and go ahead and get one.
Speaker 0 00:02:59 No kidding for realsies
Speaker 1 00:03:00 For realsies.
Speaker 0 00:03:01 Oh, thanks. Well, lemme just go on my favorite online shopping network
Speaker 1 00:03:07 That begins with an a and ends with a Amazon.
Speaker 0 00:03:10 No, a different one. I, I, I like, I like the one that, that doesn't ever give you your money back, but I'm not worried cause of because, because you're, you're a dear friend and done and done all set. Uh, it's supposed to arrive tomorrow.
Speaker 1 00:03:26 Oh, great.
Speaker 0 00:03:28 Thanks. You can just wire the money to my bank account.
Speaker 1 00:03:31 Oh yeah. You know what, as you were doing that, I was thinking about it and I was like, you know what? I really shouldn't pay for this. So I, I just feels awkward. So I think I'm, I'm not gonna pay for it,
Speaker 0 00:03:42 Steve,
Speaker 1 00:03:43 What
Speaker 0 00:03:44 You promised me. Yeah. I relied on your promise. You knew I was gonna rely on your promise. And now I just spent several hundred dollars on this new fancy, fancy Mike.
Speaker 1 00:03:57 Yeah, I really sorry about that, Dan. I know that's kind of inconvenient, but I promised, you know, you made, I made a, an offer and you accepted, but what, what did you give me? I don't, I don't think there was any consideration in that, in that. So I think there's not an enforceable contract there.
Speaker 0 00:04:15 Wait a second. You're saying that because you offered to pay for the mic and I said, sure, that would be great. You're saying you don't have to reimburse me because there was no consideration. There was no return value coming from me to you.
Speaker 1 00:04:31 Yeah. What do I get out of it?
Speaker 0 00:04:33 My friendship.
Speaker 1 00:04:35 Ah, it's not, it's not so valuable.
Speaker 0 00:04:38 Right? Plus I plus I, I, I gave a backhanded insult before.
Speaker 1 00:04:43 Yeah. So that's not an enforceable form of consideration.
Speaker 0 00:04:49 Yikes. But Steve, what I might be able to successfully Sue you.
Speaker 1 00:04:59 Oh, no. At
Speaker 0 00:05:00 Least part of what you owe me. If not everything,
Speaker 1 00:05:04 Wait, does this tie in with promissory estoppel?
Speaker 0 00:05:07 It does. It does. How so? Promissory estoppel is a substitute for consideration. And it's applicable in certain circumstances where somebody detrimentally relies on someone else's promise. Even though there was no return consideration,
Speaker 1 00:05:32 Detrimentally relies. So detriment is like harm. So if, if something is to my detriment, it's like, I'm I lost something. So you relied on my promise to your detriment, meaning you relied on my promise and then you went and spent money. So now you don't have the money, but you're right. Because you were expecting to get it from me.
Speaker 0 00:05:57 Right? Right. So if in fact you made that promise and I re and I reasonably relied on it and then I got hurt. There was that detriment to me because of my reasonable reliance on your promise. I might have an argument that you can't get out of your promise. You're a stopped from refusing to reimburse me.
Speaker 1 00:06:30 Ah, and that's so it becomes like a substitute for the consideration
Speaker 0 00:06:34 Now. Right? So I didn't really give you anything in return for your promise to reimburse me for the mic, but I could argue, I could at least try to argue that you made the promise. You knew that I was gonna rely on it and you, my online shopping, and then you, then you just, well, you betrayed me, Steve. I'm having trouble going on right now, but you betrayed me. And now as a result of this detrimental reliance, I'm out several hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 00:07:06 Wait, so as I'm thinking about this and this promissory estoppel idea, now I'm thinking of another situation. What if you are, uh, a charitable organization, a nonprofit, and I say, I promise to donate, uh, a million dollars to you and you go, great. We're getting a million dollars and then, okay. Not
Speaker 0 00:07:32 That I would ever believe you again, Steve, but yeah. Okay. Keep going. Well,
Speaker 1 00:07:35 Let's, maybe I'm a different Steve now. Um, okay. We we've gone through friendship therapy and we're, we're, we're trusting each other again. Okay. Anyway, but now I'm about to ruin all that because I promise a million dollars and you're like, great. And, and then, uh, a week later I say, you know what? I, I'm not gonna donate a million dollars. I'm not happy with you guys for some reason, is that enforceable, is there promissory, estoppel in that situation,
Speaker 0 00:08:07 Steve, frankly, I don't know exactly. Um, the answer to that question, my understanding is that there are a number of cases in which a person promises to donate money. And then the charitable organization relies on that promise. And they may do things like allocate a certain amount of money in their budget to a certain project or assign personnel to some sort of, um, charitable activity, all based on the promise of this donation. And under those circumstances, courts might be, um, more willing to enforce the, the promise. So what would you do if you got this, that type of question on an exam where someone promises money to a charitable organization, but then, then refuses to make the donation?
Speaker 1 00:09:04 I, I think if I got that on an exam, I would, I would, uh, bring in the concept of promissory estoppel. Uh, I would probably say that the charity or the non-profit would have a strong argument for enforcing the original promise to donate money, uh, based on the, the concept of promissory estoppel.
Speaker 0 00:09:24 Yeah. And I, I, I think that's a good strategy, but certainly first you would want to walk through the elements of a contract and then point out if the element of consideration is lacking, how the, how the plaintiff could then try to recover based on a theory of promissory, estoppel as a substitute for consideration.
Speaker 1 00:09:48 Yeah. That is a persuasive way to do it, to lay out the components of, uh, what, what makes a contract and then explain that promissory. Estoppel is the consider is a substitute for consideration.
Speaker 0 00:10:01 Wait, so Steve, if you're really persuaded by that argument, uh, then I, I guess you you'd have to agree that there, you really have no choice, but to send me to send me the money. Right.
Speaker 1 00:10:10 Uh, I promise, sorry that I will, uh, stop sending you the money.
Speaker 0 00:10:16 Uh <laugh> I'm not really sure what that means, but I guess now it'd be a good time to admit that I, I didn't actually order the order, the microphone,
Speaker 1 00:10:22 So. Oh, good. Well, Dan, you sound good anyway, regardless of what microphone you use
Speaker 0 00:10:27 Seriously, do you promise?
Speaker 1 00:10:30 Uh, yes, I promise
Speaker 0 00:10:33 <laugh>. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. All right. Well, thanks for that. Help Steve, stay essential,
Speaker 1 00:10:37 Stay essential.
