Difference Between Promissory Estoppel and Quasi Contract

Promissory estoppel and quasi contract are two legal concepts that often get confused with each other. However, they have distinct differences in their application and purpose.

Promissory estoppel is a doctrine that prevents a party from going back on their word, especially when the other party has relied on that promise. This is exactly what happened in the example of the construction company that promised to deliver materials on time.

In contrast, quasi contract is a legal remedy that imposes a contractual obligation on a party even if they didn't agree to it. This is demonstrated in the case of the landlord who failed to provide a safe living environment, and a court imposed a quasi contract on them to pay for the tenant's medical expenses.

The key difference between the two lies in their purpose: promissory estoppel aims to enforce a promise made by one party, while quasi contract seeks to restore justice when a party has been unjustly enriched.

Readers also liked: When You Want Different for Yourself?

Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a party from going back on their word if doing so would cause harm to another party.

This doctrine is based on the idea that if someone makes a promise to another person, they can't simply change their mind and leave the other person in a worse position than before.

A quasi contract is an obligation imposed by law to avoid unjust enrichment of one person at the expense of another. This obligation is not based on an actual agreement between parties, but rather a court's decision to prevent injustice.

It's like a situation where you receive a service without paying for it, and the law steps in to ensure fairness. For example, a plumbing company mistakenly sends a plumber to your house, and the plumber fixes a leaking hose while you're home. You didn't ask for the service, but the law implies a contract for the value of the material.

In this case, you'll have to pay for the service you received, even though there was no initial agreement between you and the plumbing company.

A different take: Investment Contract for Small Business

A quasi contract is an obligation imposed by a judge to prevent injustice, and not a contract at all.

It arises in situations where there is no actual agreement between parties, but one party has benefited at the expense of another. This can happen when a service is provided without a clear understanding of who is supposed to pay for it.

For example, suppose a plumber mistakenly fixes a leaky hose at your house, thinking it belongs to the neighbor on the next block. In this case, a quasi contract may be implied to ensure you pay for the service you received.

Quasi contracts are often used to prevent unjust enrichment, which means one person is unfairly benefiting at the expense of another. This can happen when a service is provided without a clear agreement on payment terms.

In the case of the plumber, you would be obligated to pay for the value of the material and service provided, even though there was no initial agreement.

On a similar theme: Difference between Void Agreement and Voidable Contract

The objective theory of contracts is a fundamental principle in contract law that focuses on the objective intent of the parties involved in a contract rather than their subjective beliefs or intentions.

A contract is formed based on the outward, objective manifestations of the parties’ intentions, as perceived by a reasonable person. This means that even if one party secretly harbored a different intention, the contract is based on what they objectively conveyed to the other party.

Courts will look at the objective evidence of the parties’ intent, rather than their individual, subjective beliefs or unexpressed intentions. This promotes clarity and predictability in contract law.

The objective theory of contracts takes into account the parties’ communications, actions, and conduct leading up to and including the time of the contract’s formation.

Promissory estoppel and quasi contract are two related but distinct legal concepts. Promissory estoppel is a principle that prevents people and businesses from going back on their word or promise. It helps injured parties recover on promises made that have led to economic loss when not met.

Explore further: Convertible Promissory Note

One key difference between the two is that promissory estoppel focuses on the promise itself, whereas quasi contract is more concerned with the fairness of the situation. Promissory estoppel helps injured parties recover damages they suffer due to broken promises by another party.

The application of promissory estoppel varies across different jurisdictions, so it's essential to consult a lawyer before considering a case. This is because the rules and regulations surrounding promissory estoppel can be complex and nuanced.

Here are some key differences between promissory estoppel and quasi contract:

To understand the difference between promissory estoppel and quasi contract, let's first look at the requirements and examples of promissory estoppel.

There are three key ingredients for a legal case involving promissory estoppel: the promisor, the promisee, and a promise that was not kept.

A promisor must make a promise with the intention that a reasonable person would act on it. This means the promise was made with the expectation that the other person would rely on it.

The promisee must believe the promisor and act on that promise in good faith. This means they took the promise seriously and made decisions based on it.

If the promisor later reneges on the promise, causing financial harm to the promisee, they may be able to seek damages based on promissory estoppel. This is because the promisee relied on the promise and incurred expenses as a result.

Here are the four requirements for a promissory estoppel case:

For example, if an employer promises a job to an employee in California, but later takes it back or reduces the salary, the employee may be able to seek judicial relief for the expenses they incurred due to the employer's promise.

Case law is law made by judges, and in the United States, it has developed over time through judicial decisions in individual contract disputes and claims. This has created a massive body of precedent that serves as the foundation of contract law.

Tens of thousands of contract disputes have been submitted to courts for resolution over the centuries, resulting in a huge collection of published opinions written by judges. If collected in one place, it would fill dozens of bookshelves.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an important adjunct to contract law, which recognizes that insisting on the traditional elements of contract to determine whether a promise is enforceable can work an injustice. This doctrine protects reliance, not just agreements.

To be "estopped" means to be prohibited from denying now the validity of a promise you made before. This is a significant difference from contract law, which protects agreements.

Promissory estoppel provides a remedy in situations where under traditional contract law, a party may have none. This can be a lifesaver in cases where someone relies on a promise and is left with nothing.

Promises can be classified into several types, including express promises and implied promises.

An express promise is a promise that is explicitly stated, such as a written contract or a verbal agreement.

Implied promises, on the other hand, are promises that are inferred from the circumstances, such as a promise to pay for services rendered.

In the case of promissory estoppel, a promise is implied when a party relies on another party's promise to their detriment.

Suggestion: Difference between Implied and Expressed Contract

Bilateral contracts are a type of contract where both parties make mutual promises to each other. Each party is both a promisor and a promisee, meaning they both pledge to do something and receive a pledge from the other party.

A bilateral contract is formed when both parties agree on the terms and conditions of the contract. This can be seen in the example of a homeowner and a plumber entering a contract to fix a leaky fixture outside the house. The homeowner offers payment, and the plumber promises to repair the fixture.

In a bilateral contract, both parties have a clear understanding of what they are committing to. This is evident in the written agreement between the homeowner and the plumber, which outlines the specific terms of the plumbing service, including the scope of work, cost, and timeline for completion.

On a similar theme: Contract Agreement Payment Terms

Unilateral contracts are as valid as bilateral contracts, and they're often seen in everyday life.

One example of a unilateral contract is when a homeowner puts up a sign saying they'll pay $100 to the first person to fix a leaky fixture outside their home. The plumber who fixes the leak has accepted the promise by performing the specific act required.

In a unilateral contract, the acceptance of the promise is indicated through performance, rather than by making a reciprocal promise.

Explore further: Difference between Unilateral and Bilateral Contract

Equitable estoppel and quasi contract are two related but distinct concepts in law. Equitable estoppel prevents a party from taking a position that is contrary to their previous position, if doing so harms the other party.

Quasi contract, on the other hand, is an obligation imposed by a judge to prevent injustice, and not a contract at all. It arises when one party has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another.

In a quasi contract situation, there is no actual agreement between the parties, but the law implies a contract to prevent unfairness. For example, if a plumber mistakenly fixes a leaky hose at your house, the law may imply a contract for the value of the material.

Equitable estoppel and quasi contract share a common goal of preventing injustice, but they operate in different ways. Equitable estoppel focuses on preventing a party from taking a position that harms another, while quasi contract focuses on preventing unjust enrichment.