Ajax Pvt. Ltd. made a promise to Garrett offering a job with an annual salary of $150,000, and at least two years employment. Since Garrett would have to move to New York for the new job, Ajax Pvt. Ltd. also offered to reimburse all moving expenses. Based on this promise, Garrett resigned from his $100,000 annual salary job at Dab Pvt. Ltd., San Francisco. However, once Garrett moved to New York, his employment with Ajax was terminated because the company found a candidate who was willing to work for a lesser salary. Which of the following is true of this situation?
A) Garrett cannot sue Ajax since the promise was oral.
B) Garrett can sue Ajax under promissory estoppel.
C) Garrett cannot file a lawsuit since a promise of employment is always subject to market conditions.
D) Garrett can sue Ajax, but only for the moving expenses that Garrett can prove he incurred.
E) Garrett cannot sue Ajax since the reasons for termination will be accepted in court as legal detriment.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

An important exception to the rule requiring consideration to support a promise is the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This doctrine arises when a promisee justifiably relies on a promisor's promise to his or her economic injury. Promissory estoppels often is used to prevent a party who has made a unilateral offer from withdrawing the offer after the requested work has begun.

Ajax Pvt Ltd