Summary of Katz v. Danny Dare
P/S: P filed three suits seeking payment of pensions; Two suits resulted in judgment in favor of P; Request for trial de novo was made and ruling for defendant in all cases. Plaintiff is appealing the ruling for Defendant which halted his pension payments
Facts: P worked for D for 25 years; President of D was P’s brother-in-law; P was injured attempting to retrieve money that was taken from the company, and suffered injuries which affected his work performance. D reached decision that agreeable pension to induce P to retire was necessary, and the amount of $13K was determined and agreed upon by both parties. Later, P asked D if he could do part time work for D, and D agreed. Three years later, D sent half of what was promised; P complained and D quit sending payment. D claimed P had recovered and that he could work.
Issue: Whether plaintiff’s reliance on the promise of the pension was so great that it created a promissory estoppel to stop payments.
Holding: When P elected to retire and give up a large part of his earnings, he did so as a result of a promise made by D and to his detriment by the loss of $10K per year in earnings. Judgment reversed, FOR P, to recover for the amount of unpaid pension.
Rule: Restatement § 90: A promise which the promisor should reasonable expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action is biding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
- Three elements to be satisfied to invoke the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. These are 1) a promise; 2)a detrimental reliance of such promise; and 3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise