Who is entitled to the house under the doctrine of promissory estoppel?
The correct option is (a) Kim, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel refers to an equitable principle that has been established to prevent injustice from happening. It applies when a promisor makes a promise to the promisee, which the promisee relies on, thereby changing their position to their detriment. In this case, Mike promised Kim that he would sell her the house at 123 Main Street, Garrettville, NC for $200,000. In reliance on Mike's promise, Kim completely renovated the house, repaired the heating system, and entirely landscaped the property. Since Kim relied on Mike's promise to her detriment, Mike is estopped from denying the promise he made to Kim. Thus, Kim is entitled to the house under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Explanation:
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from going back on a promise made to another party if the other party relied on that promise to their detriment. It is a way to enforce promises that were not supported by consideration in a contract, but where one party has acted on the promise to their detriment.
In the case of Mike and Kim, Mike promised to sell Kim a house he owned for $200,000. Kim, in reliance on this promise, invested time and money into renovating the house, repairing the heating system, and landscaping the property. However, when the time came for Mike to fulfill his promise, he decided to keep the house.
Kim's Entitlement: Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, Kim is entitled to the house. This is because she relied on Mike's promise to her detriment. By completely renovating the house and making significant improvements, Kim changed her position based on Mike's promise to sell her the house. Since Mike's decision to keep the house came after Kim had already acted on his promise, he cannot go back on his word.
Legal Precedent: Courts have upheld the doctrine of promissory estoppel in similar cases where one party makes a promise that the other party relies on, leading to a change in position or financial loss. By applying this equitable principle, the courts aim to prevent injustice and hold the promisor accountable for their promises.
Therefore, based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the circumstances of the case, Kim is the rightful owner of the house that Mike promised to sell her.