Part 3- Contracts, Chapter 9: Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition, Doc 4

Case Analysis and Concepts in Contractual Remedies: Promissory Estoppel and Quasi-Contract Promissory Estoppel Case Example: Aceves v. U.S. Bank (2011)    Facts: Claudia Aceves, facing foreclosure, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. U.S. Bank assured her that it would work with her to modify and reinstate her loan if she left bankruptcy proceedings. Relying on this promise, Aceves refrained from converting to Chapter 13, which would have allowed her to keep her home. Instead, U.S. Bank proceeded with foreclosure without negotiation, leaving Aceves without her home. Holding: The court allowed Aceves’s promissory estoppel claim, ruling that her reliance on U.S. Bank’s promise was foreseeable and reasonable. The bank’s promise to negotiate reinstatement was clear and unambiguous, and Aceves suffered a detriment by forgoing Chapter 13 protections. Significance: This case demonstrates how promissory estoppel can enforce a promise when there is clear reliance by the promisee, the promisor could reasonably foresee this reliance, and injustice would result if the promise is not enforced. Quasi-Contract and Unjust Enrichment Case Example: Palese v. Delaware State Lottery Office (2006)    Facts: Palese lost his lottery ticket but retained a play slip with the winning numbers. When he attempted to claim the prize, the Delaware Lottery denied it, citing that the physical ticket is required by law to claim winnings. Holding: The court dismissed Palese’s claim for unjust enrichment, ruling that the lottery rules create an enforceable contractual obligation requiring the ticket itself to claim winnings. As such, no quasi-contractual duty arose. Significance: Quasi-contract cannot override explicit contract terms or replace statutory requirements, even in cases of potential unfairness. Courts uphold formal contractual relationships, such as ticket agreements, to prevent parties from circumventing established rules. Ethical Implications Contracts and quasi-contract principles reflect ethical considerations by balancing fairness and reliance. In promissory estoppel, a promisor is ethically bound when the promisee suffers due to reliance on a clear, actionable promise. Quasi-contract ensures that unjust enrichment does not occur at another’s expense, reinforcing fairness by obligating payment for received benefits.