Question

In 2001, Joseph Toscano, who was employed as the general manager of a Fields Pianos store in Santa Ana, was very unhappy with his job and decided to find other employment. Toscano contacted Michael Greene, the president of San Diego–based Greene Music, because he had heard that Greene was considering buying Fields's Riverside store. During the course of several conversations in June and July 2001, Michael Greene offered Toscano a sales management position with Greene to start on September 1, 2001. On August 1, 2001, Toscano resigned from Fields in reliance on Michael Greene's promise of employment. In mid-August, however, Greene withdrew the employment offer. Toscano later found lower-paying jobs, the first at a piano store in Mission Viejo and then at another piano store in Utah. Toscano sued Greene for promissory estoppel. Should Toscano prevail on his claim for promissory estoppel? Why or why not? [Toscano v. Greene Music, 124 Cal. App. 4th 685 (2004).]

Answer 1

Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that binds a promiser to fulfil his promise to the promisee, even if it is made without formal consideration, When a promiser made a promise to the promisee and promisee relies on that promise and acted upon it and suffered a significant detriment.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel allows a party to recover the benefit of a promise made.

In this case, Toscano acted on the promise made by Greene, lost his wages. The elements of promissory estoppel are present in this case:

1. Promisor made a promise to cause the promisee to act on it.

2. Promisee relied on the promise and acted on it.

3. Promisee suffered a significant detriment.

Thus, Toscano should prevail on his claim for promissory estoppel