Alfred orally promised to pay Robert a salary of $30,000 per year for five years and his moving expenses up to $10,000 if Robert would quit his job and come to work for him at his manufacturing plant.Robert agreed to do so,but requested a written contract.Alfred assured him that the company attorney would prepare such a contract as soon as possible,but Alfred needed Robert to start at once.Accordingly,Robert sold his house,moved his family,and commenced to work for Alfred.He was fired without cause two months later.No written contract was ever executed.Can Robert enforce Alfred's oral promise?
A)No.This was a contract for longer than one year and is not applicable to exception.It violates the statute of frauds and is not enforceable.
B)Maybe. Robert should go to court under the theory of promissory estoppel. Alfred made an oral promise that Robert relied upon, and the way to avoid injustice is to enforce the promise.
C)Yes. This is a personal satisfaction contract, and Alfred gave no reason for dissatisfaction. Robert can recoup the loss he took on the sale of his house.
D)Yes. This is a partial performance of the sale of goods. Robert can recoup the loss he took on the sale of his house.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

This scenario falls under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Alfred made an oral promise to Robert, who relied on it by quitting his job, selling his house, and moving his family to start working for Alfred. Robert suffered a loss because of Alfred's promise, and it would be unjust to deny him compensation. Therefore, Robert can go to court under the theory of promissory estoppel to enforce the promise made by Alfred, even though no written contract was executed.

Alfred Orally Promised to Pay Robert a Salary of $30,000