Reference no: EM132699335

Patrick, a wealthy lawyer from Port Colborne undertook to contribute $2,000,000.00 to Brock University's capital campaign, payable in 4 annual instalments of $500,000.00. On the occasion when Patrick made the pledge the President of the University stated that the University would now be able to undertake the construction of an additional building and continue with its application to establish an accredited law school. A picture of Patrick and the University President was published in the local paper and on the University's website together with a news item about Patrick's generous contribution to the campaign. One month later Patrick asked if the University would name the new law school building after him. The President agreed and said the University would be honoured to call the new building "Patrick Hall" in recognition of his pledge. One year later, following payment of the first instalment of the pledge and as construction was about to begin, the President contacted Patrick and advised him that in accordance with the University's naming policy, the University had recently entered into an agreement with Andrew, another lawyer from Port Colborne, to name the new building, once completed, "Andrew Hall". Andrew had agreed to pay $5,000,000.00 for the naming rights for a period of 20 years from the completion of the building. The President advised Patrick that a lecture hall in the building would now be named after Patrick. Patrick advised the University that it had breached their agreement and he would not be making any further payment. Patrick demanded the immediate return of the $500,000.00 he had paid. The University responded that it had hired architects and engineers, had closed off a parking lot, entered into a construction contract and commenced construction based on Patrick's promise and would be commencing legal action against Patrick for the balance of $1,500,000.00.

Required:

Problem 1: Discuss the application of the principles of consideration and injurious reliance/equitable estoppel to the facts of this case. Will the University or Patrick succeed in the legal action? Is there additional information which might affect the result?