Promissory Estoppel in Washington
![handle is hein.journals/washlr55 and id is 807 raw text is: Promissory Estoppel
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN WASHINGTON
Promissory estoppel was expressly recognized in Washington in 1940.1
The doctrine provides relief for a promisee who foreseeably and justifi-
ably relies on a promise even though the parties did not form a contract.
The aim of the doctrine is remedial:2 to redress harm that has befallen an
innocent promisee, not to reward a party for his reliance.3 Promissory
estoppel, which protects the promisee's reliance interest,4 operates to re-
turn the promisee to the position he occupied before the promise was
made.
Hill v. Corbett5 identified the five elements necessary to recovery under
a promissory estoppel theory. They are: (1) [A] promise which (2) the
promisor should reasonably expect to cause the promisee to change his
position and (3) which does cause the promisee to change his position (4)
justifiably relying upon the promise, in such a manner that (5) injustice
can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.' '6
This comment clarifies the considerable confusion that befogs the
promissory estoppel doctrine in Washington.7 Part I discusses situations
1. Luther v. National Bank of Commerce, 2 Wn. 2d 470, 484, 98 P.2d 667, 673 (1940). The
doctrine of promissory estoppel was impliedly adopted much earlier. See, e.g., Coleman v. Larson,
49 Wash. 321, 325, 95 P. 262, 264 (1908)(holding that where the promisee accepts the promise,
enters into possession and makes improvements on the land, or does some other act on the faith of the
promise which materially changes his condition, equity makes the promise enforceable).
2. See notes 92-95 and accompanying text infra.
3. See Seavey, Reliance Upon Gratuitous Promises or Other Conduct, 64 HARv. L. REv. 913,
926(1951).
4. A promisee has three types of interests that can be protected by providing a remedy for reason-
able reliance on a promise. Fuller and Perdue identified the reliance interest, the expectancy interest,
and the restitutionary interest in their seminal work, The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages: I,
46 YALE L. J. 52, 53-54 (1936).
The objective of a reliance interest recovery is to return the promisee to the position he occupied
before the promise was made. The remedy would be a return of all reasonable costs incurred by the
promisee in reliance on the promise. An expectancy interest recovery, in contrast, gives the promisee
the benefit of the promise by putting him in the position he would have occupied had the promisor
performed his promise. Anticipated profits are the normal measure of relief. Finally, a restitutionary
interest recovery places both the promisor and the promisee in their pre-promise position by disgorg-
ing the benefits of the promisee's performance from the promisor. The measure of recovery would be
the value of the benefits conferred on the promisor.
This comment contends that the most appropriate measure of recovery under the promissory estop-
pel doctrine is the promisee's reliance interest. See notes 107-132 and accompanying text infra.
5. 33 Wn. 2d 219, 204 P.2d 845 (1945).
6. Id. at 222-23,204 P.2d at 847.
7. By 1937, the Washington cases in which a promise was sought to be enforced because of an
unbargained-for and detrimental change of position by the promisee in reliance on receiving the
promised performance, were in a state of confusion. Shattuck, Contracts in Washington,
1937-1957, 34 WASH. L. REv. 24, 70 (1959)(footnote omitted). The years since 1937 have seen
further inconsistent application of the doctrine. See, e.g., Ferrer v. Taft Structurals, Inc., 21 Wn.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/washlr55&div=28&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Promissory Estoppel in Washington
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most