PJC Business

C ONTRACTS

PJC 101.41

PJC 101.41 Question on Promissory Estoppel QUESTION ______ Did Paul Payne substantially rely to his detriment on Don Davis ’s promise, if any, and was this reliance foreseeable by Don Davis ? Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. The doctrine of promissory estoppel may be invoked as a cause of action. It is appropriate if a promisee has acted to his detriment in reasonable reliance on an otherwise unenforceable promise. The theory supplies a remedy enabling an injured party to be compensated for “foreseeable, definite and substantial reliance.” Wheeler v. White , 398 S.W.2d 93, 96–97 (Tex. 1965). See PJC 115.6 for a question on promissory estoppel—reliance damages. Source of question. PJC 101.41 is derived from Wheeler , 398 S.W.2d at 96–97; see also English v. Fischer , 660 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex. 1983) (requisites of promissory estoppel are “(1) a promise, (2) foreseeability of reliance thereon by the promisor, and (3) substantial reliance by the promisee to his detriment”); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1981). Broad-form submission. PJC 101.41 is a broad-form question designed to be accompanied by one or more appropriate instructions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 requires that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; see Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012) (rule 277’s use of “whenever feasible” mandates broad-form submission in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC 116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. Exception to statute of frauds. This doctrine also can be used as a plea in avoid ance of a statute-of-frauds defense when the promise at issue is a promise to sign a written agreement which itself complies with the statute of frauds. “Moore” Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 492 S.W.2d 934, 937–40 (Tex. 1972). Waiver and estoppel in insurance cases. The rules of waiver and estoppel apply differently in insurance cases. The principle has been stated as follows: Waiver and estoppel may operate to avoid forfeiture of a policy, but they have consistently been denied operative force to change, re-write and

99