Illusory Promises: Who is Entitled to the House?

Who is entitled to the house in the scenario involving Mike and Kim?

a. Kim, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel

b. Kim, because Mike's decision to keep the house is an unforeseen difficulty

c. Mike, because his promise to sell Kim the house was illusory

d. Mike, because he initially stated only his intention to sell

Answer:

The one entitled to the house is c. Mike, because his promise to sell Kim the house was illusory

In this scenario, the key issue revolves around the nature of Mike's promise to sell the house. To determine who is entitled to the house, we need to analyze the legal principles involved.

Mike promised to sell the house to Kim, but it's important to consider the nature of that promise. If Mike's promise was merely an expression of his intention to sell without any binding commitment or consideration, it could be considered illusory. In contract law, for an agreement to be enforceable, there must be a valid offer, acceptance, and consideration. If Mike's promise lacked consideration or was too vague, it may not be legally binding.

Additionally, promissory estoppel typically applies when a party has relied on a promise to their detriment. Kim's investment in renovating and repairing the house could be seen as detrimental reliance. However, the crucial element missing here is a clear, enforceable promise on Mike's part. If Mike's promise lacked the necessary legal elements to constitute a valid contract, promissory estoppel may not be applicable.

Therefore, based on the information provided, the most appropriate answer is c. Mike, because his promise to sell Kim the house was illusory, and there may not be a legally binding contract in place.