Concert benefit event coordinator promises and contractual reliance for youth housing

Contract Law -- Detrimental Reliance

Ordinarily, a gratuitous promise does not give rise to an enforceable contract because of the absence of valuable consideration (Friedman, 2005; Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). Therefore, Gerard's promise did not create a contract, at least not at the time that he issued the promise to stage a concert for Kids Care. However, in certain circumstances, even a gratuitous promise can create an enforceable obligation to perform under contract, notwithstanding the absence of consideration (Friedman, 2005; Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).

One exception at common law to the general rule would be by virtue of a moral obligation supporting the gratuitous promise (Friedman, 2005; Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). For example, where an individual provides emergency help, (such as driving a friend to an important appointment), there is no obligation to pay for the gas and tolls absent any discussion or agreement to that effect. However, if the recipient of the favor should gratuitously promise to reimburse the driver after the fact, that promise is enforceable at common law because it is supported by a moral obligation (Friedman, 2005; Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).

The situation involving Gerard is the more common way that that a gratuitous promise can give rise to an enforceable obligation even without consideration supporting the creation of a valid contract at the time of the promise. Generally, a promise of this nature would not be enforceable, such as where Gerard makes the same promise and then simply changes his mind (Friedman, 2005; Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). However, in a situation where, as in this case, the other party relies on that promise to his or her detriment, the promise becomes enforceable. Because Kids Care took a specific course of action in reliance, on Gerard's promise, an enforceable contract was formed (Friedman, 2005; Halbert & Ingulli, 2008