Sometimes, a promise is made, and someone relies on it, even if there wasn’t a formal contract signed. That’s where promissory estoppel comes in. It’s a legal idea that can help enforce promises when traditional contract rules don’t quite fit. We’ll look at how it works, what makes a promise enforceable in these situations, and how courts decide these cases. It’s all about fairness when things get complicated.
Key Takeaways
- Promissory estoppel can make a promise legally binding even without a formal contract, especially if someone relied on that promise to their detriment.
- For promissory estoppel to apply, the promise needs to be clear, the reliance on it must be reasonable and foreseeable, and the person relying must have suffered some harm because of it.
- Courts use promissory estoppel to prevent unfairness and injustice when strict contract law might otherwise leave someone without a remedy.
- While traditional contracts require consideration (something of value exchanged), promissory estoppel can sometimes enforce promises where consideration is missing, focusing instead on the reliance and resulting harm.
- Understanding the specific elements and limitations of promissory estoppel principles is important for both making promises and relying on them in business and personal dealings.
Understanding Promissory Estoppel Principles
The Foundation of Promissory Estoppel
Promissory estoppel is a legal concept that can be a bit tricky to get your head around, especially when you’re used to thinking about traditional contracts. Basically, it’s a way for courts to enforce a promise even when there isn’t a formal, legally binding contract in place. Think of it as a safety net for situations where someone made a promise, another person reasonably relied on that promise, and then got hurt when the promise wasn’t kept. It’s not about enforcing every casual statement, but rather about preventing unfairness when a promise has led someone to act in a certain way.
The core idea is to stop injustice. It steps in when strict contract rules might otherwise allow a party to break a promise without consequence, leaving the other party in a bad spot.
Key Elements for Application
For promissory estoppel to apply, a few things usually need to be present. It’s not just about a promise being made; it’s about the circumstances surrounding that promise and the actions taken because of it. Here are the main pieces:
- A Clear and Definite Promise: The statement made has to be specific enough that the person hearing it could reasonably understand what was being offered or assured. Vague or casual remarks usually don’t cut it.
- Reasonable and Foreseeable Reliance: The person to whom the promise was made must have actually relied on it, and that reliance must have been reasonable given the situation. It also needs to be something the promisor could have reasonably expected to happen.
- Detriment: The person who relied on the promise must have suffered some kind of harm or loss because they acted on it. This is often called being put in a worse position.
- Injustice: Ultimately, enforcing the promise must be necessary to avoid an unfair outcome. If no one was really harmed or if it’s perfectly fair for the promise to be broken, then promissory estoppel likely won’t apply.
Distinguishing from Contractual Claims
It’s important to see how promissory estoppel differs from a standard breach of contract claim. In a typical contract case, you need to show that a valid contract existed – meaning there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration (that’s the exchange of value that makes a contract binding). If those elements are missing, a contract claim might fail.
Promissory estoppel, on the other hand, can sometimes be used even when there’s no valid contract. It’s not about enforcing the contract itself, but about enforcing the promise to prevent injustice. This often comes up in situations like preliminary negotiations where a formal agreement never quite materializes, or when a promise is made without the formal exchange of consideration that a contract requires. So, while contract law focuses on the agreement, promissory estoppel focuses on the reliance on a promise and the resulting harm.
Establishing Reliance in Promissory Estoppel
Promissory estoppel isn’t just about a promise being made; it’s really about what happened after that promise. For a court to step in and enforce a promise that might not otherwise be a formal contract, it needs to see that someone actually relied on that promise and suffered because of it. This reliance is the bridge that connects a casual assurance to a legally binding outcome.
Reasonable and Foreseeable Reliance
The person who received the promise has to show that their reliance was both reasonable and foreseeable. What does that mean? Well, it means that an ordinary person in that situation would have believed the promise and acted based on it. It also means that the person making the promise should have reasonably expected the other person to rely on it. If you make a promise to a friend that you’ll give them a ride to the airport, and they then sell their car because they expect you to drive them, that reliance is probably foreseeable. But if you casually mention you might invest in a friend’s business, and they quit their job and take out a huge loan based on that vague statement, a court might see that reliance as unreasonable.
Detrimental Impact of Reliance
It’s not enough to just rely on a promise; that reliance has to cause some kind of harm or detriment. This means the person who relied on the promise must be in a worse position than they would have been if the promise had never been made. This detriment can take many forms:
- Financial Loss: Spending money, incurring debt, or losing out on a profitable opportunity.
- Opportunity Cost: Giving up a job, a business deal, or another chance because of the promise.
- Effort and Time: Investing significant personal effort or time based on the expectation created by the promise.
For example, if a landlord promises a tenant they can stay for another year, and the tenant then turns down a job offer in another city, the detriment is the lost opportunity. If the landlord then breaks the promise and asks the tenant to leave, the tenant has suffered a loss because of their reliance.
Quantifying Reliance Damages
When a court finds that promissory estoppel applies, it aims to put the injured party back in the position they would have been in had the promise never been made. This is different from contract law, where damages often aim to put the party in the position they would have been in if the promise had been kept (expectation damages). With promissory estoppel, the focus is on the harm caused by the reliance itself. This might include:
- Out-of-pocket expenses: Money actually spent in reliance on the promise.
- Lost opportunities: The value of a specific opportunity that was forgone.
- Costs incurred: Expenses directly resulting from acting on the promise.
It’s about compensating for the actual loss suffered due to believing and acting on the promise, not necessarily for the full benefit that might have been gained if the promise had been fulfilled.
The Role of Promises in Enforcement
When we talk about enforcing agreements, the promise itself is really the heart of the matter. It’s what one party says they will do, or refrain from doing, for another. But not all promises are created equal in the eyes of the law, especially when we’re looking at situations where a formal contract might be missing or flawed. Promissory estoppel often steps in when a promise, even without all the traditional contract bells and whistles, has led someone to act in a certain way.
Clarity and Specificity of the Promise
The promise needs to be clear enough that the person hearing it could reasonably understand what was being offered or expected. Vague statements or casual remarks usually don’t cut it. Think about it: if someone says, "I might help you out sometime," that’s pretty different from, "I promise to give you $500 next Friday if you finish this report." The latter is specific; the former is just a maybe.
- A promise must be definite and certain.
- It should leave little room for misunderstanding about the promisor’s intent and the expected action or forbearance from the promisee.
- Ambiguity can be a major hurdle in trying to enforce a promise, even under promissory estoppel.
Promises Made by Authorized Parties
It’s also important that the person making the promise actually has the authority to do so. If you’re dealing with a company, the promise needs to come from someone who can legally bind that company. A regular employee making a promise outside their job scope might not be able to create an enforceable obligation for the business.
Distinguishing Promises from Mere Statements of Intent
This is where things can get tricky. Sometimes people say things that sound like promises, but they’re really just expressing a hope or a plan that could change. For example, a company might issue a press release about future expansion plans. That’s a statement of intent, not a promise to a specific individual that they can rely on for personal gain. The key is whether the statement was intended to induce reliance and whether a reasonable person would have relied on it as a commitment.
The line between a firm commitment and a mere expression of future possibility can be fine, but it’s critical for determining if a promise has legal weight. Courts look at the context, the language used, and the relationship between the parties to figure out what was truly intended.
Equitable Considerations in Promissory Estoppel
When we talk about promissory estoppel, it’s not just about strict legal rules. There’s a whole layer of fairness and justice that courts look at. This is where equity comes into play. It’s about making sure things are right and preventing someone from being unfairly harmed, even if a formal contract wasn’t perfectly formed.
Preventing Injustice
The main goal here is to stop unfair outcomes. Sometimes, a promise is made, someone relies on it, and then the person who made the promise backs out. If there’s no contract, they might think they’re in the clear. But if that reliance caused real problems for the other person, a court might step in. It’s about preventing someone from suffering a loss because they trusted a promise that was never intended to be legally binding in the traditional sense. Think about a situation where a business owner promises a supplier a large order, and the supplier buys a lot of new equipment based on that promise. If the business owner then cancels, the supplier could be in serious financial trouble. Promissory estoppel can help here.
The Court’s Discretionary Power
Judges have a good amount of say in how promissory estoppel cases turn out. They aren’t just applying a rigid formula. They look at all the facts and decide if it’s fair to enforce the promise. This means the outcome can vary quite a bit depending on the specific circumstances. It’s not a guaranteed win for anyone; it really depends on the judge’s view of what’s just. This discretionary power is what makes equity distinct from strict legal rules. It allows for flexibility when the black-and-white rules of contract law don’t quite fit the situation.
Balancing Interests of Parties
Courts try to find a middle ground. They look at the promise made, how much the other party relied on it, and the harm that reliance caused. They also consider the impact on the person who made the promise. It’s a balancing act. The goal isn’t necessarily to give the relying party everything they expected from the original promise, but rather to make sure they aren’t left in a worse position because they trusted that promise. Sometimes, this might mean awarding damages that cover the losses incurred due to the reliance, rather than the full benefit of the bargain. This approach helps maintain fairness and encourages responsible promise-making, even outside formal contracts. Understanding the statutes of limitations for bringing such claims is also important, as these equitable claims can still be subject to time limits.
Promissory Estoppel Versus Traditional Contract Law
Promissory estoppel is not just a legal footnote—it’s how courts sometimes enforce promises when classic contract rules fall short. Here, let’s compare promissory estoppel to traditional contract law, digging into key differences and what they mean for those stuck in a gray area between promise and contract.
Absence of Consideration
The main way promissory estoppel contrasts with regular contract law is the role of consideration. Traditional contracts won’t stick without consideration. That’s just legal talk for each side giving up something of value. For example, Alice pays Bob, and Bob mows Alice’s lawn. No consideration? No contract. In promissory estoppel cases, though, the promise may still get enforced, even if the person receiving the promise didn’t give back anything concrete.
This matters most when someone relies on a promise and then gets left in the dust, without protection from standard contract rules.
Here’s a simple breakdown:
| Feature | Traditional Contract Law | Promissory Estoppel |
|---|---|---|
| Consideration Required? | Yes | Usually, No |
| Enforces Formal Agreements? | Yes | Not required |
| Goal | Fulfill mutual exchange | Prevent unfairness from reliance |
Enforcing Promises Lacking Formal Contractual Elements
Sometimes, people make promises without following official steps like writing things down or making formal offers and acceptances. In contract law, no formal contract, no enforcement. Promissory estoppel bends that rule. As long as:
- A clear enough promise is made
- The promisee relies on it
- The reliance is reasonable and damages result
Courts may step in and enforce the promise to stop real unfairness.
When contract requirements can’t be met, promissory estoppel can step in as a flexible solution for those caught off guard by an empty promise.
When Promissory Estoppel Serves as a Substitute
Promissory estoppel isn’t just a fallback; it’s an actual substitute for a contract in certain situations. Courts might apply it when:
- There’s a promise, but no valid contract (missing consideration, not in writing, etc.)
- The person receiving the promise took action or gave up something, based on believing the promise.
- Denying the promise would leave the person at a loss or in an unfair spot.
In other words, promissory estoppel protects fairness when technical contract rules leave a gap. It doesn’t replace regular contracts but acts as a safety net when one side would be hurt by strict enforcement of legal technicalities.
- No need for a detailed, negotiated agreement.
- Focus is on justice and avoiding harm, not strictly enforcing rights.
- Courts will generally aim to put the injured party back where they were, instead of awarding the full benefit of the bargain.
These differences show why promissory estoppel matters—not to create loopholes, but to keep the legal system from being too rigid when people count on promises and get hurt as a result.
Defenses Against Promissory Estoppel Claims
Even though promissory estoppel can be a powerful tool for enforcing promises that might not fit neatly into traditional contract law, it’s not a guaranteed win for every claimant. There are several ways a defendant can push back against a promissory estoppel claim. Think of these as the "but what about?" questions that can derail a case.
Lack of Reasonable Reliance
This is a big one. For promissory estoppel to apply, the person claiming they were wronged has to show that their reliance on the promise was reasonable. What does that even mean? Well, it means that a sensible person in the same situation would have also relied on that promise. If the promise was vague, or if there were clear signs that the promisor couldn’t or wouldn’t follow through, then the reliance might not be seen as reasonable by a court. For example, if someone promises you a job but it’s contingent on a bunch of things that are totally out of their control and unlikely to happen, your quitting your current job based solely on that promise might be seen as unreasonable.
Absence of Detriment
Another key piece of the puzzle is detriment. The person relying on the promise has to have suffered some kind of harm or loss because they acted on it. It’s not enough to just say, "I relied on it." You have to show that you were actually worse off because you believed the promise. This could be financial loss, giving up another opportunity, or putting in significant effort that now seems wasted. If you can’t show that you were actually harmed, the claim for promissory estoppel usually falls apart. The law isn’t there to enforce every casual promise; it’s there to prevent unfairness when someone is harmed by relying on a promise.
Vagueness of the Promise
Promissory estoppel really hinges on the existence of a clear promise. If what was said or written is too fuzzy, ambiguous, or sounds more like a casual remark than a firm commitment, it’s hard to argue that anyone should have reasonably relied on it. Courts look for specificity. Was the promise definite enough that the other party could understand exactly what was being offered and what was expected? If the promise was something like, "We’ll probably do business together" or "I’ll think about helping you out," that’s likely too vague to form the basis of a promissory estoppel claim. The promise needs to be concrete enough to create an expectation that could be reasonably relied upon.
Remedies Available Under Promissory Estoppel
When a promise is enforced through promissory estoppel, the goal isn’t necessarily to put the wronged party in the exact same position they would have been if the promise had been fully performed, like in a traditional contract. Instead, the focus is on fairness and preventing injustice. The court looks at what’s needed to make things right, considering the reliance that occurred.
Reliance Damages vs. Expectation Damages
This is a big difference from standard contract law. In contract cases, you often get expectation damages – what you would have gained if the contract had been honored. With promissory estoppel, it’s usually about reliance damages. This means you get compensated for the losses you actually suffered because you trusted the promise and acted on it.
- Reliance Damages: Cover out-of-pocket expenses and losses incurred directly due to relying on the promise.
- Expectation Damages: Aim to provide the benefit of the bargain, as if the promise was fulfilled.
Think of it this way: if someone promised you a job and you quit your old one, reliance damages might cover your moving expenses and lost wages up to the point you found out the job wasn’t happening. Expectation damages would cover the salary you would have earned over the term of that job. Promissory estoppel typically sticks to the former.
Equitable Relief Options
Sometimes, money just doesn’t cut it. Courts have a bit more flexibility with promissory estoppel because it’s rooted in equity. This means they can order actions beyond just paying money.
- Specific Performance: In rare cases, a court might order the promisor to actually do what they promised, especially if the subject matter is unique and damages wouldn’t be adequate.
- Injunctions: A court could issue an order to stop someone from doing something that would further harm the relying party.
- Restitution: If the promisor received a benefit from the promisee’s reliance, the court might order that benefit to be returned.
Limitations on Recovery
It’s not a free-for-all, though. The recovery is generally limited to what’s necessary to prevent injustice. This means:
- Reasonableness: The reliance must have been reasonable under the circumstances.
- Foreseeability: The harm resulting from the reliance should have been foreseeable to the promisor.
- Mitigation: The party seeking recovery must have taken reasonable steps to minimize their losses.
The ultimate aim is to avoid unfairness. If enforcing a promise fully would be too much, or if only compensating for direct losses is enough to make things right, the court will tailor the remedy accordingly. It’s about fairness, not necessarily full contractual benefit.
So, while promissory estoppel can be a powerful tool to enforce promises that might otherwise fall outside traditional contract law, the remedies are often more focused on repairing the harm caused by reliance rather than granting the full benefit of the unfulfilled promise.
Application in Business and Commercial Settings
Promissory estoppel often pops up in the business world, especially when formal contracts aren’t quite ironed out or have some gaps. It’s a way the law can step in to make sure people aren’t left high and dry after relying on a promise, even if that promise wasn’t part of a signed, sealed deal.
Negotiations and Preliminary Agreements
During the back-and-forth of business negotiations, parties might make certain assurances to keep discussions moving. For instance, one company might tell another, "Go ahead and start ordering specialized materials; we’re definitely going to sign this deal." If the second company then spends a good chunk of money on those materials, and the first company backs out without a good reason, promissory estoppel might be invoked. The key here is that the promise was specific enough, and the reliance was reasonable given the context of the negotiations. It’s not about enforcing every casual remark, but about promises that reasonably lead someone to act in a way that would cause them harm if the promise isn’t kept. This can be particularly relevant in complex deals where a full contract takes time to finalize. Understanding the basics of contract law is helpful, but promissory estoppel offers a safety net when those basics aren’t fully met.
Franchise and Licensing Agreements
In the world of franchises and licenses, there’s often a period of negotiation and preparation before the final agreements are signed. A franchisor might promise a potential franchisee exclusive rights to a territory or provide specific operational guidance. If the franchisee, relying on these promises, invests heavily in setting up a business location, purchasing equipment, or hiring staff, they might have a claim if the franchisor later reneges. The franchisor’s promises need to be clear, and the franchisee’s actions must be a direct and foreseeable result of those promises. It’s about preventing a situation where one party makes significant investments based on assurances, only to have those assurances withdrawn without consequence.
Employment Promises
Promissory estoppel can also apply to promises made in an employment context. While many employment relationships are "at-will," meaning either party can end the relationship for any reason, there are exceptions. If an employer makes a specific promise of employment for a certain duration, or promises certain benefits or compensation, and an employee quits their previous job or turns down other offers in reliance on that promise, they might be able to use promissory estoppel. For example, if a company promises a job with a specific salary and relocation assistance, and the candidate sells their house and moves, only to have the job offer rescinded, they could potentially have a claim. The promise must be definite, and the employee’s reliance must be substantial and detrimental. The core idea is to prevent injustice when a promise has induced action or forbearance.
Navigating Promissory Estoppel in Litigation
Bringing a promissory estoppel claim into court involves a structured approach, much like any other legal action. It’s not just about stating a promise was made and relied upon; there are specific procedural steps and evidentiary requirements to consider. Think of it as building a case brick by brick, where each piece needs to fit perfectly.
Pleading Promissory Estoppel
When you initiate a lawsuit based on promissory estoppel, the initial document, often called a complaint, needs to clearly lay out the facts. This means detailing the promise made, how the other party reasonably relied on it, and the harm suffered because of that reliance. It’s vital to articulate these elements distinctly to satisfy legal requirements. Simply mentioning a broken promise isn’t enough; the legal framework demands a specific structure to the allegations.
Discovery of Evidence
Once the case is filed, the discovery phase begins. This is where both sides exchange information. For a promissory estoppel claim, this might involve requesting documents that show the promise was made (like emails or letters), evidence of the reliance (like financial records or actions taken based on the promise), and proof of the resulting detriment. Depositions, where witnesses answer questions under oath, are also common. The goal is to gather all relevant facts that support or refute the claim.
Burden of Proof
In any legal case, one party has the burden of proving their claims. For promissory estoppel, the party bringing the claim (the plaintiff) generally has to demonstrate that all the necessary elements are met. This includes showing:
- A clear and definite promise was made.
- The promisor should have reasonably expected the promisee to rely on the promise.
- The promisee did, in fact, rely on the promise.
- The reliance was reasonable and foreseeable.
- The promisee suffered a detriment as a result of the reliance.
The standard of proof in most civil cases, including promissory estoppel, is typically a "preponderance of the evidence." This means the plaintiff must show that it is more likely than not that their version of events is true. It’s a lower bar than "beyond a reasonable doubt" used in criminal cases, but it still requires solid evidence.
Table: Key Elements and Proof Considerations
| Element of Promissory Estoppel | What Needs to Be Proven |
|---|---|
| Clear Promise | Specific terms of the promise, not vague or conditional |
| Reasonable Expectation | Evidence showing the promisor anticipated reliance |
| Actual Reliance | Actions taken by the promisee directly because of the promise |
| Reasonable Reliance | Justification for the promisee’s belief and actions |
| Detriment | Quantifiable loss or harm suffered due to reliance |
The Evolving Landscape of Promissory Estoppel Principles
Promissory estoppel is not stuck in one place. Over the years, it has shifted with court decisions, changes in statutes, and the practical realities parties face when promises are broken outside of formal contracts. As business arrangements change and new types of agreements pop up, courts have had to interpret promissory estoppel in ways that account for new expectations and risks. Let’s take a closer look at how things have changed and what might come next.
Judicial Interpretations and Trends
Judges have been the main drivers of change when it comes to promissory estoppel. Sometimes, courts apply it broadly, capturing a wide range of promises that don’t quite rise to the level of enforceable contracts. Other times, they use a much narrower reading and demand clearer proof of both the promise and the reliance.
Key judicial trends include:
- Greater willingness to uphold promises in the absence of traditional consideration, especially where one party clearly relied on the promise.
- More scrutiny on whether reliance was reasonable and harm was real, instead of just "potential."
- Increased attention to the context in which the promise was made—like in business negotiations or between employer and employee.
The pattern is clear: flexibility in application, but still careful to avoid abuse of the doctrine by parties seeking to create rights where there is only casual talk.
Impact of Statutory Law
Statutory changes often lag behind judicial trends, but in recent years, some legislatures have stepped in to clarify how promissory estoppel should work or to set limits. For example, employment law statutes in some states now define when an employee can pursue a claim based on broken promises, limiting courts’ discretion in those cases. Other statutory provisions clarify how estoppel interacts with written contract requirements under the Statute of Frauds.
Here’s a quick comparison table to show where statutory law has added clarity:
| Context | Judicial Approach | Statutory Clarification |
|---|---|---|
| Employment Offers | Varied—case by case | Set time limits for claims, define enforceable promises |
| Statute of Frauds | Flexible exceptions | Require writing or signatures on specific promises |
| Franchise Licenses | Reliance sometimes enough | Notice periods, written disclosure requirements |
Future Directions in Contract Enforcement
Looking forward, promissory estoppel could become even more important as business deals and employment relationships grow increasingly informal. Technology makes it easier to make and memorialize quick promises—sometimes by email or even text. Courts may have to develop new standards for what kind of electronic promise actually counts.
Potential shifts on the horizon:
- Courts may recognize more electronic communications as binding promises.
- Statutes could further limit or expand promissory estoppel in certain industries.
- As businesses change their negotiation and contracting practices, expectations around reliance and harm will keep shifting too.
Promissory estoppel is adapting and will likely stay relevant as long as people continue making—and relying on—promises outside standard written contracts.
Wrapping Up: Promissory Estoppel’s Place
So, we’ve looked at how promissory estoppel fits into the bigger picture of contract law. It’s not a replacement for a solid contract, but it can be a real lifesaver when someone makes a promise that another person relies on, and then that promise is broken. Think of it as a safety net. It helps make things fairer when strict contract rules might otherwise lead to an unfair outcome. While courts are careful about when they apply it, understanding its role is pretty important for anyone dealing with agreements, especially when things don’t go exactly as planned. It’s a tool that helps ensure promises, even those not in a formal contract, can sometimes hold up in court.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is promissory estoppel?
Promissory estoppel is like a safety net for promises. If someone makes a promise, and you reasonably believe them and act on it, only to get hurt when they don’t keep their word, this rule can help you. It’s a way to make a promise stick, even if it wasn’t a formal contract.
What do you need to show for promissory estoppel to work?
You need a few key things. First, there must be a clear promise. Second, the person making the promise should have known or expected that you would rely on it. Third, you actually did rely on the promise in a way that made sense. Finally, you were harmed or suffered a loss because you relied on the promise and it wasn’t kept.
How is this different from a regular contract?
A regular contract usually needs an exchange of something valuable, like money for goods. Promissory estoppel can step in when there isn’t a formal contract, like when someone promises a job or a gift, and you make big decisions based on that promise. It’s about fairness when a promise causes harm.
What does ‘reasonable reliance’ mean?
It means that acting on the promise was something a sensible person would do in your situation. If the promise was vague or seemed unlikely, relying on it might not be considered reasonable. The court looks at whether your belief in the promise and your actions based on it were sensible.
Can promissory estoppel be used if there’s no written agreement?
Yes, often it is used when there isn’t a formal written contract. The whole point is to provide a way to enforce promises that might otherwise be legally unenforceable because they lack certain contract elements, like formal consideration. It’s about preventing unfairness.
What kind of harm do you need to show?
You need to show that you suffered some kind of loss or disadvantage because you trusted the promise. This could be losing money, missing out on another opportunity, or facing other difficulties. The harm needs to be a direct result of your reliance on the broken promise.
What can a court do if promissory estoppel applies?
The court can order the person who broke the promise to help make up for the harm you suffered. This usually means paying you back for the losses you incurred because you relied on their promise. It’s not always about giving you everything you expected, but rather about fixing the damage caused by the broken promise.
Are there any defenses against a promissory estoppel claim?
Yes, someone accused of breaking a promise might argue that their promise wasn’t clear enough, that you didn’t really rely on it, or that your reliance wasn’t reasonable or foreseeable. They might also argue that you didn’t actually suffer any harm, or that enforcing the promise would be unfair to them.