Sasha, the owner of Mucho Munchies, Inc. a Midwestern restaurant chain, told Erin, a manager in the Columbus restaurant, that whenever the regional manager’s position for Ohio became vacant, Erin would be promoted to the position at whatever the regional manager’s salary is at the time. A month later, Erin turned down an offer from a competitor to be the regional manager of one of its regions. A year later, the regional manager’s position became vacant, but Sasha promoted Jan to the job. Under these circumstances.

Question

Sasha, the owner of Mucho Munchies, Inc. a Midwestern restaurant chain, told Erin, a manager in the Columbus restaurant, that whenever the regional manager’s position for Ohio became vacant, Erin would be promoted to the position at whatever the regional manager’s salary is at the time.  A month later, Erin turned down an offer from a competitor to be the regional manager of one of its regions. A year later, the regional manager’s position became vacant, but Sasha promoted Jan to the job.  Under these circumstances.

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The scenario presents a promise made by Sasha to Erin: if and when the Ohio regional manager position becomes vacant, Erin would be promoted to that position at whatever the regional manager’s salary is at that time. Erin later declined an external offer for a similar role, and after a year the position opened again, Sasha promoted Jan instead. The key legal question is whether Erin can pursue promissory estoppel.

First, consider the elements of promissory estoppel: (1) a clear and definite promise, (2) the promisor should reasonably expect that the promisee would rely on it, (3) the promisee actually relies on the promise to their detriment, and (4) enforcement of the promise is necessary to avoid injustice.

Applying these to Erin’s situation:
- Clear and definite promise: Sasha stated that Erin would be promoted to the regional manager position when it became vacant and at the then-current salary. This appears to be a specific, unequivocal promise about a future promotion and compensation, satisfying the definiteness requirement.
- Reasonable reliance: Erin took actions based on the promise. Specifically, she turned down an offer from a competitor that could have advanced her career, indicating reliance on Sasha’s promise to promote her when the opportunity arose. This demonstrates reasonable reliance on the promise.
- Detrimental reliance: By turning down an external opportunity, Erin risked and incurred opportunity costs tied to remaining with Mucho Munchies, which supports that she suffered a detriment from relying on the promise.
- Injustice without enforcement: If promissory estoppel were not available here, Erin would be left without a remedy for the reliance and detriment she suffered due to the promise, which could be considered an injustice.

However, there are considerations that can complicate the application:
- The passage of time: A year passed before the regional manager position opened again, and Sasha promoted someone else. Some courts require that the promise be sufficiently certain and not illusory, and a long delay may complicate expectations. Yet the essential reliance and detriment still exist, especially given Erin’s earlier rejection of another offer.
- Intent to create a binding obligation: The language of the promise would need to reflect an intent to bind the employer to a future promotion. If the promise was more tentative or conditioned on future circumstances, it could weaken the promissory estoppel claim.
- Consideration and at-will employment norms: In many jurisdictions, employment promises outside a formal contract can be scrutinized in light of at-will employment norms. Promissory estoppel can sometimes bridge this gap where formal consideration is absent, provided the four elements are met.

On balance, given Erin’s reliance by turning down a competitor opportunity, the promissory estoppel theory could be viable because the elements of a clear promise, reasonable reliance, and resulting detriment appear to be present, and the policy rationale supports enforcing promises that induce reasonable reliance to prevent injustice.

If there were a competing or alternative answer choices, one would evaluate them similarly by testing whether they satisfy the four elements and how the facts support or undermine each element. In this case, the single provided option argues for Erin’s successful promissory estoppel claim, which aligns with the reasoning above given the circumstances described.

BUSFIN 3500 SP2025 (4686) Chapter 5 Quiz

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which one of the following is NOT true?

Which one of the following is NOT true?

Which one of the following is NOT true?

Which one of the following is NOT true?

Which one of the following is NOT true?

To make a case of wrongful discharge based on promissory estoppel, a former employee must show: BlackTom题目解析

More Practical Tools for International Students

Exam Browser Assistant

Stylized Writing Assistant

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation Assistant

In-Class Translation Assistant

Class Notes Assistant

Quiz Search Assistant

Past Exam Questions by School

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler