| Court: | Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Facts: | Red Owl strings Hoffman along about the possibility of becoming a franchisee. The key issue is the cash that he'd have to put up, apparently. They want it unencumbered (i.e., not loaned). Along the way, he enters into substantial reliance (sale of a business, moving, etc.). Then they say no franchise for you. |
| Posture: | Very confusing. Earlier finding was somewhat for the defendants, and the plaintiff appeals. |
| Issue: | Ostensibly, there are seven. Basically, though, it comes down to whether Red Owl had done enough to induce reliance that the court should consider an enforceable contract to have been established (Restatement (second) of Contracts §90). |
| Holding: | Basically yes, but damages are pretty limited in contract actions. |
| Rule: | Injustice would result if the plaintiff were not granted some relief because of the defendants' breaking of promised upon which the plaintiff relied to his detriment. |
| Reasoning: | The promises could reasonably be expected to induce substantial action or forebearance. And, in fact they did. And injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. So we have a bona fide case for promissory estoppel. |
| Dicta: | |