Evolution of Common Law: Promissory Estoppel

Abstract

In the business realm, contractual agreements are made with the intent of conducting good business practices from which all parties can benefit. However, in the real world, not all promises are always honored. In this case, promissory estoppel acts as an “invisible signature” that effectively binds the party guilty of default. By definition, promissory estoppel prevents a promisor from unjustly retracting a promise made to a promisee. The doctrine was conceived as a way of providing fair and reasonable conflict resolution and bringing balance back to the system. The existence of the traditional contract already addresses the issue of enforcing a promise. However, promissory estoppel was found to provide a means to circumvent the requirements of a breach-of-contract claim without the necessity of contractual consideration. When examining breach-of-contract versus promissory estoppel, the following questions are raised: Can they coexist and still justly serve their purposes? Will one eventually envelop the other? Although an all-purpose doctrine, promissory estoppel proves especially useful in the construction industry, where many deals and contracts are made between parties. This paper analyzes and investigates the topic of promissory estoppel and its evolution through common law. Discussions and cases are presented that will serve to develop and bridge the relationship of promissory estoppel with its importance, application, and limitations in the construction industry.