Business Law Module 6
Jessica Schmitt
Business Law
Chapter 15:
8. Sears, Roebuck and Co promised to give Forrer permanent employment, so he sold his farm at a loss to take the job. But shortly after beginning work, he was discharged by Sears who claimed the contract could be terminated at will. Forrer claimed that the promissory estoppel prevented Sears form terminating the contract. Under promissory estoppel a promisor may be prevented from asserting that their promise is unenforceable because the promise gave no consideration for the promise. This is applicable when the promisor makes a promise that lacks consideration, and intends or should reasonably expect that the promise will rely on the promise and in fact does, and that the enforcement of the promise is the only way to avoid injustice. In this case, promissory estoppel did not prevent Sears from terminating the contract. Generally speaking, a contract for permanent employment that provides no additional considerations (such as something benefitting the employer) for employment amounts to just a general hiring that is terminable at the will of either party. The promise was fulfilled once the relationship between Forrer and Sears was established, and no additional benefit to Sears was provided. 14. Radio station KSCS announced that it would pay $25,000 to any listener who detected that it didn’t play three songs in a row, but when Steve Jennings listened and heard a program where two songs were played followed by a commercial, he claimed the $25,000. The station refused to pay on the ground that there was no consideration for its promise to pay that amount. Consideration is the bargained-for exchange between the parties to a contract. It can consist of either a benefit to the promisor or a loss or detriment to the promisee. So when a promise acts to his detriment in reliance upon a promise there is sufficient consideration to bind the promisor to his promise. In this case it can be said that Jennings listened to the radio
Business Law
Chapter 15:
8. Sears, Roebuck and Co promised to give Forrer permanent employment, so he sold his farm at a loss to take the job. But shortly after beginning work, he was discharged by Sears who claimed the contract could be terminated at will. Forrer claimed that the promissory estoppel prevented Sears form terminating the contract. Under promissory estoppel a promisor may be prevented from asserting that their promise is unenforceable because the promise gave no consideration for the promise. This is applicable when the promisor makes a promise that lacks consideration, and intends or should reasonably expect that the promise will rely on the promise and in fact does, and that the enforcement of the promise is the only way to avoid injustice. In this case, promissory estoppel did not prevent Sears from terminating the contract. Generally speaking, a contract for permanent employment that provides no additional considerations (such as something benefitting the employer) for employment amounts to just a general hiring that is terminable at the will of either party. The promise was fulfilled once the relationship between Forrer and Sears was established, and no additional benefit to Sears was provided. 14. Radio station KSCS announced that it would pay $25,000 to any listener who detected that it didn’t play three songs in a row, but when Steve Jennings listened and heard a program where two songs were played followed by a commercial, he claimed the $25,000. The station refused to pay on the ground that there was no consideration for its promise to pay that amount. Consideration is the bargained-for exchange between the parties to a contract. It can consist of either a benefit to the promisor or a loss or detriment to the promisee. So when a promise acts to his detriment in reliance upon a promise there is sufficient consideration to bind the promisor to his promise. In this case it can be said that Jennings listened to the radio