Extract to table

The contestants are thus caught in a legal dilemma: they must characterize the promise as contractual to overcome the gift problem, but in doing so, they expose the claim to the full force of the Statute of Frauds defense

To invoke promissory estoppel as an exception to the Statute of Frauds, the claimant must establish each of the following elements: (a) A clear and unambiguous promise — The promise must be definite enough that the court can determine the scope of the obligation and fashion an appropriate remedy

(b) Reasonable and foreseeable reliance — The promisor must have reasonably expected that the promisee would rely on the promise, and the reliance must have been foreseeable at the time the promise was made

(c) Actual reliance that is substantial and definite — The promisee must demonstrate concrete, identifiable actions taken in reliance on the promise, not merely a generalized change in expectations or state of mind

(d) Injustice avoidable only by enforcement — The court must determine that the circumstances are such that enforcement of the promise is necessary to prevent injustice

This element requires more than mere disappointment of an expectation; the promisee must show that the failure to enforce would result in a substantial and unjust harm