Sierra Nielsen
December 10, 2023
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.
Issue(s) Before the Court
Whether the Hoffman couple had a cause of action based on promissory estoppel is the main
issue that was presented to the court. This is important to the case's outcome because the courts had to
decide whether it was reasonable to uphold the promises for the purpose of justice. Red Owl Stores
promised the Hoffman couple an investment in order to open a new store under their name, so they
launched a lawsuit. Red Owl's decision to increase investment pricing stopped the agreement from being
finalized. The ability of a party to recover from compromising its position due to reliance on promises
made by another party was another issue the court had to consider. For this case, the court applies the
law of promissory estoppel.
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.
Rule(s) Used by the Court in Deciding Case
The rule of law in Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. was promissory estoppel. When determining
whether to use promissory estoppel in a court of law, three elements must be taken into consideration.
The initial question is "Was the promise one which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce
action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promises?". The second
thing to consider before using promissory estoppel is "Did the promise induce such action or
forbearance?". The third question is, "Can injustice be avoided only by enforcement of the promise?".
In this case, the court applies promissory estoppel as the rule because the only way to prevent injustice is
to enforce the specific promise. This rule demonstrates that the party making the promise in this instance
should have expected that the plaintiff would rely on it.
