Two siblings start a coffee shop. They orally agree that each will pay the guitarist $10,000 from their sale proceeds. The guitarist relies on this promise and makes a down payment on a car before the sale is completed, and the siblings later sign a written contract stating that the sister will pay a specified amount to the guitarist. Under promissory estoppel, is the guitarist likely to prevail?

• A. No, because there was no consideration for the promise.
• B. Yes, because the guitarist relied on the promise to his detriment.
• C. No, because promises to pay third parties are unenforceable without a formal writing.
• D. Yes, but only if the guitarist provides evidence of damages.

Answer: (B)

Promissory estoppel lets a promise be enforced even without consideration when someone relies on it to their detriment and injustice would result if the promise isn’t kept. In this scenario, the siblings make a clear oral promise to pay the guitarist $10,000 from the sale proceeds. The guitarist reasonably relies on that promise by putting a down payment on a car before the sale is completed. That reliance is foreseeable and detrimental to him—the down payment is a concrete cost incurred in reliance on the promise. Enforcing the promise avoids an injustice by compensating him for the reliance losses.

The later written contract does not defeat this. Promissory estoppel can apply even when there’s no consideration or when a writing exists; the key is that the promise was relied upon to the promisee’s detriment and injustice would result if not enforced. Damages in promissory estoppel are typically based on the reliance suffered, such as the car down payment and related costs, rather than requiring a separate damages proof beyond that reliance.

So, the guitarist is likely to prevail because his detriment from relying on the promise supports enforcement under promissory estoppel.