Which one of the following is NOT true?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question presented is: 'Which one of the following is NOT true?' However, the provided data does not include the full set of answer options, only a single item labeled as the correct answer: 'c. Promissory estoppel is only relevant where a contract exists'.

Since the complete list of answer choices is missing, I cannot evaluate each option against the question with certainty. Nonetheless, I can explain why the statement labeled as option c is not true in many common legal frameworks, which helps illuminate the kind of reasoning needed.

- What promissory estoppel generally is: It is a legal principle that allows a party to enforce a promise even in the absence of a formal contract, when someone makes a reliance-based promise that the other party reasonably relies upon to their detriment, and injustice would result if the promise were not enforced.
- Why the claim 'Promissory estoppel is only relevant where a contract exists' is not true: The doctrine specifically addresses promises that do not fit the traditional contract formation, or cases where a contract may be deficient or not fully formed, yet reliance and injustice justify enforcement. Courts recognize promissory estoppel as a tool to prevent unfair results when a contract may be missing or incomplete, not only when a contract exists.
- Additional nuances: Some jurisdictions treat promissory estoppel as a substitute for consideration or as part of contract law to prevent unfair outcomes. It can also operate in situations where there is a promise and reliance outside of formal contract negotiations, such as grant promises, assurances in negotiations, or statements made to induce reliance.
- Implications for evaluating options: A statement asserting promissory estoppel is only relevant where a contract exists would be inconsistent with the core purpose of promissory estoppel, which aims to protect reasonable reliance in the absence (or incompleteness) of an enforceable contract. If other options argue that promissory estoppel can be invoked without a contract, or that it serves to prevent injustice due to reliance, those would align with common doctrine.

If you can provide the full set of answer options, I can analyze each one specifically, identify which is NOT true, and explain the reasoning for each choice with precise references to how promissory estoppel operates in contract and non-contract contexts.

Which one of the following is NOT true?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions