Reference no: EM133810281

Issue: Whether Jasper is likely to be successful if he sues John for outstanding monthly payments

1. Offer and Acceptance

The first element to consider is whether there was a valid offer and acceptance. In this case, the text message from John to Jasper clearly outlines a promise: "Cheer up. $30,000 will be of great help. Going to college is a good decision. It is my pleasure to help my little brother." This statement can be seen as an offer made by John to provide financial support for Jasper's education.

Jasper's reaction to this message, including his subsequent decisions, likely indicates acceptance of the offer. The fact that Jasper moved forward with his educational plans could be interpreted as a tacit acceptance of John's offer. While there may be questions about the formality of the promise-especially given that it was communicated via text message-the content of the message suggests a serious and committed offer to support Jasper financially. In contract law, the existence of an offer and acceptance is crucial to forming a binding agreement.

2. Promissory Estoppel

Even if the agreement between John and Jasper is not formally a contract, the doctrine of promissory estoppel could still allow Jasper to enforce John's promise. Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that can be invoked when one party makes a promise that another party relies on to their detriment, even if the promise lacks formal consideration or is not backed by a contract.

In this case, Jasper clearly relied on John's promise of financial support to continue his education. Over the years, Jasper relied on the monthly payments to meet his living and tuition expenses. If John suddenly stops making the payments, Jasper could be in danger of being expelled from college, which would result in significant harm to him. Jasper's reliance on the promise can be seen as detrimental, as his continued education and financial planning were based on the expectation that John would follow through on his commitment.

To Conclude- Under promissory estoppel, if Jasper can demonstrate that he reasonably relied on John's promise and suffered harm as a result of John's cessation of the payments, a court could enforce the promise to prevent an unjust result. Courts often apply promissory estoppel to prevent a party from reneging on a promise when the other party has changed their position in reliance on it.