Promissory estoppel and contract validity in a train sale dispute

Trains

For a legally valid contract to exist, there must be consideration (i.e., a good or service of value must be exchanged for money or something else of value), there must be a meeting of the minds (otherwise known as agreement) between competent parties, and the terms of contract must be legal (i.e., selling illegal drugs is not a contract.) in this case, the trains are clearly valuable and are at least worthy of consideration from a financial standpoint, both parties are competent adults, and the exchange is legal. What is under question is the nature of the agreed-upon consideration, as there was no articulated agreement of exchanging the trains for a specific dollar amount. ("Contract Basics," 2006, Electric Law Library)

Contracts need not be in writing to be legal, but the promise of exchange was not made for a specific dollar amount, thus consideration is in doubt. It seems that this is not a breach of contract, even though it was cruel of Tom not to inform the Harry that he had changed his mind. Harry never made a financial offer, after Tom's statement that he would sell the trains to Harry.

Promissory estoppel is the doctrine that prevents a party from acting in a certain way because the first party promised not to (as in not sell the trains to the highest bidder rather than Harry) and the second party relied on that promise and acted upon the promise, expecting it to be fulfilled (as Harry clearly did). Promissory estopple is an alternative to consideration as a basis for enforcing a promise. It is also sometimes referred to as detrimental reliance, in other words that the second party has experienced a loss because of the implied promise of the first party.