Which is an example of promissory estoppel?

Which is an example of promissory estoppel?

• A. Michael Scott promising to pay tuition but later refusing
• B. A store refusing to sell a product
• C. A silent auction without bids
• D. A person returning a borrowed item on time

Answer: (A)

Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that allows a party to recover damages when they relied on a promise made by another party, even in the absence of a formal contract. In the context of the choices provided, the situation where Michael Scott promises to pay tuition but later refuses is a classic example of promissory estoppel. In this scenario, Michael makes a promise that induces another party (such as a student relying on that promise) to take certain actions, such as enrolling in school, based on the expectation that the tuition will be paid. If the student incurred expenses or obligations based on that assurance, they can argue that they relied on Michael's promise, and it would be unjust for him to back out without facing potential legal consequences. This reliance on the promise, which leads to a change in position or action, solidifies the case for promissory estoppel. Other options do not demonstrate the necessary components of promissory estoppel. For instance, a store refusing to sell a product does not involve a promise that leads someone to rely on it, while a silent auction without bids suggests a lack of participation rather than reliance on a promise. Lastly, returning a borrowed item on time does not pertain to a promise that caused

Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that allows a party to recover damages when they relied on a promise made by another party, even in the absence of a formal contract. In the context of the choices provided, the situation where Michael Scott promises to pay tuition but later refuses is a classic example of promissory estoppel.

In this scenario, Michael makes a promise that induces another party (such as a student relying on that promise) to take certain actions, such as enrolling in school, based on the expectation that the tuition will be paid. If the student incurred expenses or obligations based on that assurance, they can argue that they relied on Michael's promise, and it would be unjust for him to back out without facing potential legal consequences. This reliance on the promise, which leads to a change in position or action, solidifies the case for promissory estoppel.

Other options do not demonstrate the necessary components of promissory estoppel. For instance, a store refusing to sell a product does not involve a promise that leads someone to rely on it, while a silent auction without bids suggests a lack of participation rather than reliance on a promise. Lastly, returning a borrowed item on time does not pertain to a promise that caused