Question

7. Mers was a sales rep for Dispatch Printing. His trainer at Dispatch assured him that, as long as he was a fairly good worker, he would have continued employment. Mers did better than this, earning numerous commendations and awards for having an exemplary sales record. Unfortunately, he was arrested for a felony and shortly thereafter was suspended from Dispatch. The director of the Dispatch Employee-Labor Relations Department told Mers that he would be reinstated when he received “a clean bill of health, a clean slate.” Mers was also told that he would be reinstated with back pay. Mers’ felony case went to trial and the result was a hung jury. Mers had not looked for another job during this time, and so when the prosecutor announced that the case would no longer be pursued, he went back to Dispatch with his “clean slate.” At that point he was told that he could not have his job back. Mers looked for work for three years before finding another job. Mers sued Dispatch using promissory estoppel as one of his theories of recovery. Does Mers have a good promissory estoppel case here? Explain. [See: Mers v. Dispatch Printing Company, 39 Ohio App.3d 99 (1988).]

Answer 1

Yes, Mers has a good promissory estoppel case here.

A promise must normally be in a deed (legal agreement or contract) or supported by consideration to be enforced. The principle of estoppel however may allow a promise to be enforced even though these requirements are not satisfied.

The essential elements of promissory estoppel are :

1. Some form of legal relationship either exists or is anticipated between the parties. A contractual relationship falls within the scope of a legal relationship, and oral promises can also lead to binding contracts.

2. There is a representation or promise by one party.

3. The other party relies on the promise or representation.

4. The party relying on the promise must have suffered some sort of detriment. In other words, the party must be in a worse position for having relied on the promise.

5. Last, but definitely not the least, unconscionability needs to proved. There is no general restriction, which prohibits a person from breaking his or her promise. Accordingly, before an action for estoppel will succeed, it must be shown that, in the circumstances, it would be unfair or inequitable to allow them to do so.

All the aforesaid elements are present in the present case, and therefore, Mers has a good promissory estoppel case here.

Mers would successfully defend his claim as he had relied, to his detriment, on his employer's promise, that he would be reinstated with back pay if pending criminal charges were favorably resolved. The criminal charges against Mers were actually dropped.