Alternative Theories of Enforcement

Question 1

What is an alternative theory of enforcement in contract law?

Answer 1

A theory that allows a plaintiff to seek relief even without a traditional, enforceable contract.

Common examples include Promissory Estoppel, Quasi-Contract, and Moral Obligation with a Subsequent Promise.

Question 2

What are the three commonly tested alternative theories of recovery?

Answer 2

• Promissory Estoppel
• Quasi-Contract
• Moral Obligation with a Subsequent Promise

These theories provide avenues for relief in the absence of a traditional contract.

Question 3

Define Promissory Estoppel.

Answer 3

A legal principle that makes a promise binding and enforceable under certain conditions.

Even without a traditional contract, Promissory Estoppel can provide relief to the plaintiff.

Question 4

What are the three conditions that must be met for Promissory Estoppel to apply?

Answer 4

• The promisor should reasonably expect the promise to induce action or forbearance from the promisee
• The promise does induce such action or forbearance
• Injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise

These conditions ensure that the promise is enforceable despite the lack of a contract.

Question 5

What is the typical remedy for Promissory Estoppel?

Answer 5

Limited to the monetary value of the losses incurred in reliance on the promise (i.e., reliance damages).

Courts often limit recovery to what is necessary to achieve justice.

Question 6

Promisor makes a gift promise to a charitable org. w/o consideration — valid contract?

Answer 6

Yes, gift promises to charitable orgs. (charitable subscription) are generally seen as valid contracts under a theory of promissory estoppel

likewise, marriage settlements are binding w/o proof of induced action or forbearance

Question 7

Is a charitable subscription binding without proof of induced action or forbearance?

Answer 7

Yes, a charitable subscription is binding even without such proof.

This is supported by Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(2).

Question 8

True or False: Promissory Estoppel can only be applied in commercial transactions.

Answer 8

False.

It can apply in various contexts, including charitable and personal promises.

Question 9

What must a plaintiff demonstrate to recover under quasi-contract?

Answer 9

The plaintiff must show:
* P conferred a measurable benefit to D
* P conferred benefit w/ reasonable expectation of compensation for its value; AND
* Defendant would be unjustly enriched if he were allowed to retain the benefit w/o compensating P

Question 10

What type of benefit must be conferred for quasi-contract claims?

Answer 10

The benefit must have calculable economic value, such as goods or services.

Question 11

Can a plaintiff recover restitution for conferring a gift?

Answer 11

No, because there is no expectation of compensation when giving gifts.

Question 12

What does ‘unjust enrichment’ mean in the context of quasi-contract?

Answer 12

The defendant benefits from the plaintiff’s conferred benefit without compensation.

Question 13

Under what circumstances does D become unjustly enriched in the context of a quasi-contract

Answer 13

either:
* The defendant knew or had reason to know of the plaintiff’s expectation to be compensated; OR
* The plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for conferring the benefit without the defendant’s knowledge (i.e., emergency situations).

Question 14

What is an ‘officious intermeddler’?

Answer 14

A party that supplies unnecessary services to unwilling recipients.

officious meddlers are not entitled to restitution under a quasi-contract theory

Question 15

Under what circumstance can a plaintiff recover restitution without the defendant’s knowledge?

Answer 15

In emergency situations where the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for conferring the benefit

think doctor providing care to unconscious patient

Question 16

What is the limit on a plaintiff’s recovery under quasi-contract?

Answer 16

The recovery is limited to restitution, equal to the economic benefit conferred.

Question 17

What is an implied-in-fact contract?

Answer 17

A contract inferred from the acts or conduct of the parties.

e.g. A customer telling a barber how they would like their hair cut and accepting the haircut.

Question 18

How does an implied-in-fact contract differ from a quasi-contract?

Answer 18

An implied-in-fact contract requires mutual assent and consideration shown through acts, while a quasi-contract does not.

Question 19

What are the three elements required to establish an implied-in-fact contract?

Answer 19

• The plaintiff conferred a measurable benefit to the defendant
• The plaintiff expected compensation for the benefit
• The defendant knew or had reason to know of this expectation

Question 20

True or False: An implied-in-fact contract is treated like a traditional, enforceable contract.

Answer 20

True.

Question 21

What can a plaintiff recover for breach of an implied-in-fact contract?

Answer 21

Expectation damages.

like a traditional enforceable contract

Question 22

Fill in the blank: An implied-in-fact contract exists if the plaintiff conferred a measurable benefit to the defendant, expected _______ for its value, and the defendant knew of this expectation.

Answer 22

compensation.

Question 23

What must be shown by the parties’ acts and conduct to establish an implied-in-fact contract?

Answer 23

All elements of a traditional, enforceable contract.

Question 24

What may entitle a plaintiff to relief even without a traditional enforceable contract?

Answer 24

A moral obligation

This applies even if there is a lack of consideration between the parties.

Question 25

Is past consideration considered valid consideration in contract law?

Answer 25

No, past consideration is not consideration ## Footnote However, some courts may enforce a promise supported by past consideration where there is a strong moral obligation and justice so requires.

Question 26

Under what condition might a promise supported by past consideration be enforced?

Answer 26

If there is a strong moral obligation and justice so requires ## Footnote This indicates that moral considerations can influence legal outcomes.

Question 27

# *Mills v Wyman* Mills provided medical care for Wyman’s adult son who became ill while away from home. Grateful, Wyman later promised to pay Mills for helping his son recover from the illness. When Wyman reneged on his promise, Mills sued for breach of contract — Result?

Answer 27

The court held that promises made in recognition of past benefits are not enforceable (i.e., past consideration). The court reasoned that Wyman may have had a moral duty to uphold his promise to Mills, but not a legal one ## Footnote more recently, in *Webb v McGowan* Court reaches opposite conclusion

Question 28

# *Webb v McGowin* Webb, an employee of McGowin, sustained permanent injuries acting in a heroic effort to prevent a 75 lb pine block from striking McGowin, likely saving McGowin’s life. Grateful, McGowin later promised to pay Webb a biweekly sum of money for the rest of Webb’s life. McGowin upheld this promise paying Webb the promised sum for 8 years until McGowin died. Upon McGowin’s death, McGowin’s estate refused to continue paying Webb, and Webb sued — Result?

Answer 28

The court held that the moral obligation that motivated McGowin’s promise justified enforcing the promise ## Footnote Modern Courts split between *Mills* and *Webb* approaches