Question

Two friends, Ann and Mary, are having margaritas at happy hour. There had been no discussion of who would pay for the drinks. After the third round of drinks, Ann said, "I will pay for everything tonight including your drinks." A couple of minutes later, Ann says, "I've changed my mind. I just remembered that they might be having layoffs at my job tomorrow." Mary wants to force Ann to perform on her promise and threatens to sue. In this circumstance, a court would:

a. Not require Ann to follow through on the promise because it was a gratuitous promise.
b. Require Ann to follow through on the promise under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
c. Require Ann to follow through on the promise if Mary had previously paid a comparable amount for food or drinks consumed by Ann.
d. Require Ann to follow through on the promise if it would be a hardship for Mary to pay for her own drinks.
e. Not require Ann to follow through on the promise because it would encourage Mary to drink.

Answer 1

A court would likely require Ann to follow through on the promise under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this circumstance, a court would likely require Ann to follow through on the promise under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a person from going back on their promise if the promisee relied on the promise to their detriment. In this case, Mary relied on Ann's promise to pay for the drinks and it would be unfair to allow Ann to change her mind after Mary relied on the promise.