American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

absolute specificity in pleading and, instead, requires only information sufficient to
fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it.
Paragraph 12 of respondent’s complaint states, “That as a direct and
approximate result of the negligent conduct and breach of contract conduct of
[appellant], [respondent] has been damaged . . . . .” But the complaint also states:
4. That in 2000, based on the assurance and inducement of
[appellant] to pay for [respondent’s] legal education, [respondent] made
the decision to enroll in law school at Hamline University School of Law
(Hamline) in St. Paul, Minnesota which she did in 2001.
5. That but for the inducement and assurance of [appellant] to
pay for [respondent’s] legal education, [respondent] would not have
enrolled in law school. [Appellant] was aware of this fact.
Paragraphs four and five of the complaint are sufficient to put appellant on notice of
the promissory-estoppel claim. 3
At a pretrial deposition, respondent testified that negligence and breach of
contract were the only two causes of action that she was pleading. Because
promissory estoppel is described as a contract implied at law, respondent’s deposition
testimony can be interpreted to include a promissory-estoppel claim.
In its legal analysis, the district court stated:
The Court finds credible [respondent’s] testimony that [appellant]
encouraged her to go to law school, knowing that she would not be able
to pay for it on her own. He knew that she was short on money, having
helped her pay for food and other necessities. He knew that she was
working at Qwest and would need to quit her job to go to law school. He
offered to pay for the cost of her going to law school, knowing that she
had debts from her undergraduate tuition. He made a payment on her
law school tuition after she enrolled. [Respondent] knew that [appellant]
was a wealthy philanthropist, and that he had offered to pay for the
education of strangers he had met in chance encounters. She knew that
he had the wealth to pay for her law school education. She knew that []
he was established in society, older than she, not married, without
children, an owner of a successful company, an owner of an expensive
home, and a lessor of an expensive car. Moreover, [appellant] was a
friend who had performed many kindnesses for her already, and she
trusted him. [Appellant’s] promise in fact induced [respondent] to quit
3 [Practice tip: As a lawyer, you never want to have to make the court decide whether you said
just enough to put the other party “on notice” of the claim. Be clear. Not all judges will be this forgiving
of a vaguely stated claim.—Eds.]
______________________________________________________________________________
UNIT 9: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AS A CONSIDERATION SUBSTITUTE 169