'Promissory estoppel' may allow enforcement of a promise, even without traditional consideration, when:
Explanation
Promissory estoppel substitutes detrimental reliance for bargained-for consideration: the promisor should reasonably expect the promise to induce action or forbearance, the promisee does justifiably and substantially rely, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. In construction the classic application is a general contractor's reliance on a subcontractor's bid — Drennan v. Star Paving (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409. Each distractor removes one required element: (b) drops foreseeability of reliance, so the promisor had no reason to guard his words; (c) drops reliance itself, leaving a bare gratuitous promise that no theory enforces; (a) drops the objective reasonableness that makes reliance justifiable.
Law Reference: Drennan v. Star Paving (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409This topic, taught in full in the CSLB Law & Business guide. CSLB Law & Business — Complete Study Guide (2026) — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 1632 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete CSLB Law & Business guide — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- A third-party beneficiary who is an 'intended beneficiary' of a contract:
- An 'incidental beneficiary' of a contract differs from an intended beneficiary in that an incidental beneficiary:
- A contractor's bid submitted to an owner is best characterized in contract terms as:
- A general contractor uses a subcontractor's bid to prepare and win the prime contract, reasonably relying on that bid. If the sub then tries to withdraw the bid, the general may argue the sub is bound under:
- A 'retention' (retainage) provision in a construction contract generally allows the owner to:
- A 'progress payment' schedule in a construction contract is designed to:
Last reviewed: · editorial process