Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California
This question involves a bit of an ethical tight rope walk.
When I was 16 my grandmother promised me her car when I turned 18. When I actually turned 18 she said that I couldn't afford insurgence, which for the most part was true, so she would hang on to it until I graduated from the local community college, Santa Monica College.
When I finally graduated and transferred she swiftly changed her tune and said that she no longer had any intent to transfer the vehicle to my name. She promise that she would give me the vehicle all the way up to the moment of my graduation, and then withheld.
I had planned on being able to commute from my university to Los Angeles so during the summer I started a few companies based in LA, with the idea that I would make trips to a fro on the weekends. I set up my classes so that I had class only three days out of the week.
But when she withheld, my plans were shot. I had enough financial aid to afford gas and insurgence, but not a whole new vehicle(+ gas and insurgence). I tried I bought a used vehicle but it broke down, I just couldn't afford to make up the difference.
My question is: Under the grounds of promissory estoppel do I have legal grounds to take that vehicle?
The question: Is it okay to sue a grand parent? is one for later consideration.
3 Answers from Attorneys
You were graduated from Santa Monica College and you don't know how to spell "insurance"? Sue SMC for a refund of your tuition. Sometimes part of growing up is discovering that Uncle Harry or Aunt Sue is dishonest or otherwise vile. You want to stick it to Grandma? Get a job, buy your own car and forget all about her. Or just move out of her basement.
You have no right to take the car. You do have a plausible lawsuit against your grandmother and there is no legal bar to suing her. Whether it would be worth the resulting intra-family strife is a very different question. My sense is that you haven't thought that one through.
A gratuitous promise is unenforceable without consideration. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an exception to the requirement of consideration.
Promissory estoppel is a �doctrine which employs equitable principles to satisfy the requirement that consideration must be given in exchange for the promise sought to be enforced.� (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn., (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 672.) The usual remedy in promissory estoppel cases is enforcement of the promise, and the damages are measured by the extent of the obligation assumed. (Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 638, 649.)
I don't see how you starting companies (or perhaps you mean started employment with companies) is sufficient to satisfy promissory estoppel. After all, wouldn't you want gainful employment, notwithstanding the promise? And what is the detriment to you?
"Under this doctrine a promisor is bound when he should reasonably expect a substantial change of position, either by act or forbearance, in reliance on his promise, if injustice can be avoided only by its enforcement." (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 249.) "The vital principle is that he who by his language or conduct leads another to do what he would not otherwise have done shall not subject such person to loss or injury by disappointing the expectations upon which he acted." (Wilson v. Bailey (1937) 8 Cal.2d 416, 423
Related Questions & Answers
-
For my civil litigation matter (not limited to robo signing, violation of... Asked 11/15/11, 12:19 pm in United States California General Civil Litigation
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
