Opinion ID: 2452319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Measure of damages for promissory estoppel claims

Text: Broadly speaking, Nevada follows the doctrine of promissory estoppel articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. See Vancheri v. GNLV Corp., 105 Nev. 417, 421, 777 P.2d 366, 369 (1989). The Restatement describes promissory estoppel as follows: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1) (1981). Comment delaborates further upon the remedies available for promissory estoppel: A promise binding under this section is a contract, and full-scale enforcement by normal remedies is often appropriate. But the same factors which bear on whether any relief should be granted also bear on the character and extent of the remedy. In particular, relief may sometimes be limited to restitution or to damages or specific relief measured by the extent of the promisee's reliance rather than by the terms of the promise. Id. § 90 cmt. d (emphasis added). Thus, under the Restatement, an award of expectation damages [4] is often an appropriate remedy for promissory estoppel claims. But, in other instances, reliance damages [5] or restitutionary damages [6] may be more suitable. Following the lead of the Restatement, we hold that the district court may award expectation, reliance, or restitutionary damages for promissory estoppel claims. [7] Although the doctrine of promissory estoppel is conceptually distinct from traditional contract principles, there is no rational reason `for distinguishing the two situations in terms of the damages that may be recovered.' Toscano, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d at 737 (quoting Signal Hill Aviation Co., Inc. v. Stroppe, 96 Cal.App.3d 627, 158 Cal.Rptr. 178, 185 (1979)). In sum, no single measure of damages will apply to each and every promissory estoppel claim; instead, to determine the appropriate measure of damages for promissory estoppel claims, the district court should consider the measure of damages that justice requires and that comports with the Restatement's general requirements that damages be foreseeable and reasonably certain. [8] See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 351, 352 (1981).