Question

Mary makes an oral contract with Nick that would ordinarily be unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. A court may enforce the contract under the doctrine of promissory estoppel only if the contract?

1) cannot be performed in one year
2) involves a purchase or sale of land
3) involved a sale of goods valued in excess of $5,000
4) none

Answer 1

A court may enforce an oral contract under the principle of promissory estoppel, even if it would ordinarily be unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, if it is shown that one party detrimentally relied on the promise of the other. The applicability of promissory estoppel does not depend on the type of contract but on the presence of reliance and detriment.

Step-by-step explanation:

A court may enforce an oral contract under the doctrine of promissory estoppel if one party relied to their detriment on the promise of the other party, even if the contract would normally be unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Promissory estoppel can apply regardless of the subject matter of the contract, so the scenario presented does not definitively fit into any of the given options (1) through (3). Therefore, the answer would be (4) none, as the applicability of promissory estoppel depends on the circumstances of the reliance and detriment rather than on the specific type of contract.

The principle of promissory estoppel recognizes that contractual rights are rooted in property rights, allowing individuals to enter into agreements regarding the use of their property and to have recourse through the legal system in the event of noncompliance. For example, if a skilled surgeon performs a surgery expecting payment and the patient fails to pay, the surgeon would normally have legal recourse based on their contract. However, if the contract was oral and falls under the Statute of Frauds, the surgeon might still seek enforcement through promissory estoppel if they can demonstrate reliance on the patient's promise to pay.