Marketing Solutions Inc. promises to employ Niki as a software engineer. In reliance on the promise, Niki quits her job with Online Ad Agency, but Marketing Solutions does not hire her. Most likely, Marketing Solutions is
liable to Niki under the concept of rescission.
liable to Niki under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
liable to Niki under the preexisting duty rule.
not liable to Niki.
The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
The correct answer is: liable to Niki under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Explanation:
Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that allows a party to recover on a promise, even in the absence of a formal contract, when certain conditions are met. The key elements of promissory estoppel are:
- A promise was made: Marketing Solutions made a promise to employ Niki as a software engineer.
- Reliance on the promise: Niki quit her job at Online Ad Agency in reliance on the promise of employment. This demonstrates that Niki relied on the promise to her detriment.
- Reasonable reliance: Niki’s reliance on the promise was reasonable. It’s plausible that she believed the offer from Marketing Solutions was genuine and relied on it to make a significant decision, such as quitting her job.
- Detrimental reliance: Niki experienced a loss (quitting her job) as a result of relying on the promise. This shows that the reliance caused harm.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel protects individuals who have relied on non-binding promises to their detriment, and it aims to prevent injustice by enforcing the promise, even though a formal contract was not formed. In this case, because Niki quit her job based on the promise from Marketing Solutions, and the company did not follow through, Niki has likely suffered harm. Under promissory estoppel, she may be entitled to compensation for the losses suffered due to this reliance.
Why other options are not correct:
- Rescission: Rescission involves the cancellation of a contract, typically because of fraud, misrepresentation, or mutual mistake. This does not apply here because there was no formal contract that can be rescinded, just a promise.
- Preexisting duty rule: This rule applies when a party is already legally obligated to do something and tries to claim additional compensation for doing it. It is not relevant here, as Marketing Solutions did not have a preexisting duty to employ Niki.
- Not liable: Marketing Solutions would likely be held liable under promissory estoppel due to Niki’s detrimental reliance on their promise.