Contracts - Ricketts v. Scothorn Case

CONTRACT LAW Ricketts v. Scothorn brought before the Supreme Court of Nebraska for consideration. When a promisee can show that she has rationally and foreseeably relied on a promise to her detriment, equitable estoppel prevents a promisor from rescinding an otherwise unenforceable promise that was made gratuitously. This is because the promisee has already suffered the consequences of the promisor's actions. Facts Katie Scothorn, the plaintiff in this case, quit her job and gave up her profession as a bookkeeper after her grandfather presented her with a promissory note offering to pay her $2,000 on demand in addition to 6% interest each year. In addition to that, she gave up working in her chosen area. During the time that he was handing her the letter, her grandfather shared with her that he did not want any of his grandkids to have employment. Scothorn immediately quit her job after receiving this information from her grandfather. Her grandpa had previously expressed the sentiment that he did not want his grandchildren to have jobs. In spite of the fact that it appeared as though her grandfather wanted her to quit her job in order for her to collect the money that had been promised to her, neither the terms of the letter nor her grandfather's remarks required her to do so in order for her to be eligible to receive the money. Rather, she was only required to leave her job in order to collect the money. On the other hand, at the time he passed away, her grandpa had only paid the interest on the loan for the previous year; the primary sum still needed to be paid off. Scothorn is arguing that the executor of her grandfather's estate, Andrew D. Ricketts (the defendant), broke the terms of the promissory note by filing a lawsuit against him. Scothorn's case was filed against Andrew D. Ricketts. After the lower court decided in Scothorn's favor and issued a judgment in his favor, Ricketts appealed the decision by submitting a new brief to the higher court. Issue If the promisee has reasonably and reasonably anticipatedably relied on the promise, then equitable estoppel may prevent the promisor of an otherwise unenforceable gratuitous promise from canceling the promise. However, this is only relevant in the event that the promisee placed her wellbeing in reliance on the promise. Taking Into Account the Facts and Arguments (Sullivan, J.) Yes. Even if a promise is not enforceable due to the absence of consideration because it was made gratuitously, the promise cannot be avoided if the promisee suffered some detriment in relying on the promise, and such reliance was a foreseeable result of the promise. This is because the promisee suffered some detriment in relying on the promise. This is due to the fact that the promisee experienced some kind of disadvantage as a result of depending on the promise, and this is also due to the fact that the promisee experienced some form of disadvantage as a result of relying on the promise. In general, gratuitous promises are not enforceable, and in the instances where they have been enforced, the investments made or costs committed in reliance on the promise have been deemed to provide sufficient consideration for the promise to be upheld. This is because the courts view these actions as providing sufficient consideration for the promise. On the other hand, equitable estoppel offers a second foundation for the execution of a contract by prohibiting the promisor, on equitable grounds, from avoiding the contract owing to a lack of consideration. This is accomplished by saying that equitable estoppel acts as a kind of equitable estoppel. This is accomplished by barring the promisor from escaping the contract on the grounds that there was insufficient consideration. It was impossible to keep Scothorn's grandfather's promise since he did not make any provision to fulfill the terms of the agreement. Even though he appears to have wanted her to stop working, he made no demands in exchange for his promise to pay her, and he made it clear that he did not want anything in return for his assistance. On the other hand, it did look as if he want for her to find another occupation. When he handed Scothorn the promissory note, he must have been aware that she would most likely abandon her work and give up her profession as a result of her dependency on the promissory note. Ricketts is precluded from contesting the obligation of the promissory note on the grounds of equitable estoppel due to the fact that she is the executor of her grandfather's estate. As a direct consequence of this fact, she is precluded from challenging the note's obligation. The decision that the lower court reached in its case is affirmed.