Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1350970
 
 

Footnotes (486)



 


 



Reconsidering the Reliance Rules: The Restatement of Contracts and Promissory Estoppel in North Dakota


Thomas Folsom


Regent University School of Law

1990

66 N.D. Law Rev. 317 (1990)

Abstract:     
There is now in some states a sort of synthetic common law, formed from a handful of cases or none at all supplemented by a judicial quasi-enactment of the Restatements of the Law. As it deals with "promissory estoppel," the Restatement of Contracts presents a web of related concepts and rules. This article asserts, consistently with modern American contract theory, there is but one "reliance interest" yet there are at least three different kinds of reliance: (1) reliance in the absence of consideration, (2) reliance in the absence of assent, and (3) reliance in the absence of a required writing. Just as there are dramatically different policies for each of the three presumptive rules that reliance occasionally displaces, so it might be expected that courts would have articulated dramatically different rationales to explain why reliance is "reasonable" and failure to enforce the relied-upon promise is "unjust" in any of the three different situations. This article examines every significant reliance case in a single jurisdiction and concludes the courts in that state have tended to assume rather than decide the doctrine is applicable. Moreover, they have neither treated the three kinds of reliance differently nor articulated why, exactly, it is sensible to enforce some relied-upon promises because of reliance, yet contrary to other law. This article draws no explicit normative conclusion other than the obvious: the law might be more predictable if courts would explain their rationale. In passing, this article observes that North Dakota has a comprehensive civil code of substantive law providing that promises constitute binding contracts if accompanied by "consent" and sufficient "cause" or consideration. Accordingly, this article suggests promissory estoppel is not only unnecessary as a practical matter but may be impermissible as a matter of law in North Dakota (and in California, Montana and other such code states).

Number of Pages in PDF File: 133

Keywords: Promissory estoppel, Reliance interest, Restatement Contracts, Civil Code

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 1, 2009  

Suggested Citation

Folsom, Thomas, Reconsidering the Reliance Rules: The Restatement of Contracts and Promissory Estoppel in North Dakota (1990). 66 N.D. Law Rev. 317 (1990). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1350970

Contact Information

Thomas C. Folsom (Contact Author)
Regent University School of Law ( email )
Virginia Beach, VA 23464
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 546
Downloads: 49
Footnotes:  486

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.219 seconds