Opinion ID: 1190550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: individual promissory estoppel

Text: [8] Promissory estoppel has not yet been accorded clear-cut and precise analysis and definition by the courts. In fact, the analysis by the textbook writers and law review commentators is somewhat less than illuminating. Strangely enough, the statement of the theory in Restatement, Contracts § 90 (1932) is relatively simple: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. We have previously cited the Restatement's formulation as being a useful guideline: Spooner v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 47 Wn.2d 454, 287 P.2d 735 (1955); Hill v. Corbett, 33 Wn.2d 219, 204 P.2d 845 (1949); State v. Northwest Magnesite Co., 28 Wn.2d 1, 182 P.2d 643 (1947); and cases cited therein. In effect, § 90, supra, sets out five prerequisites for a recovery in promissory estoppel: (1) A promise which (2) the promisor should reasonably expect to cause the promisee to change his position and (3) which does cause the promisee to change his position (4) justifiably relying upon the promise, in such a manner that (5) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. In the light of our holding hereinbefore that Mr. Rosenquist was in no way authorized to bind Whitworth College in the manner asserted by the plaintiffs, the first element, a promise, is missing with respect to Whitworth College, Inc. While the Rosamond-Rosenquist memorandum of agreement contains promissory language, the promises, if any, are those of an unauthorized agent and not those of Whitworth College. There can be no recovery against Whitworth College on a theory of promissory estoppel. With respect to Northern Pacific Railway Co., we fail to see any correlation between any action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the plaintiffs and the railroad's promise to sell the land. The second and third elements of promissory estoppel recovery are missing. Even assuming full knowledge by Northern Pacific of every facet of the proposed dealer-distributor transaction, what change of position by the plaintiffs should the railroad have expected? Even more conclusively, what change of position did the promisee (the plaintiffs) undertake (or forbear to undertake) during the allegedly operative period of the offer, e.g., from July 13, 1965 to October 2, 1965? [9] In addition, the provisions of Restatement, Contracts § 91 (1932) are directly in point: If a promise within the terms of §§ 86-90 is in terms conditional or performable at a future time the promisor is bound thereby, but performance becomes due only upon the happening of the condition or upon the arrival of the specified time. Northern Pacific Railway's offer to execute a deed in favor of the plaintiffs was expressly conditioned upon receipt of a check for the agreed upon consideration. Even if all of the elements of a theory of promissory estoppel were present, Northern Pacific's performance would not be due, since the check was never forwarded. As to J.I. Case Company, there must be a new trial as to possible liability to the plaintiffs by virtue of the principles of promissory estoppel and/or express contract. Again, it is impossible to ascertain what portion, if any, of the damages awarded under the amalgamated count one were awarded by the jury solely as to J.I. Case Company promises which allegedly induced definite and substantial action by the plaintiffs. The parties stipulated that the sum claimed by J.I. Case Company in its counterclaim should be $15,000. Error is assigned to the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury to render a verdict for $15,000 in favor of J.I. Case Company. There were no special interrogatories or verdicts concerning this counterclaim; therefore, it is not possible to determine whether or not the jury considered the claim by way of setoff to its award of general damages to the plaintiffs. J.I. Case Company properly preserved its rights in this respect on appeal, and we will assume that the trial court will give the counterclaim appropriate attention upon new trial. In conclusion, our decision herein is to reverse the judgment against the defendants, Northern Pacific Railway Co., J.I. Case Company, and J.I. Case Credit Corporation on the conspiracy count. In addition, we reverse the trial court on its denial of motions by defendants Northern Pacific Railway Co. and Whitworth College, Inc., challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on the all-inclusive breach of contract count. There should be a new trial as to the contractual or promissory estoppel liability of J.I. Case Company to the plaintiffs. It is so ordered. ALL CONCUR.