Dow v. Harvey

Maine Supreme Judicial Court · Contracts

ContractsPromissory Estoppelpromissory estoppelimplied promisereasonable relianceforeseeable relianceland conveyanceremedy

Facts

Teresa's parents owned land on which Teresa had long wanted to build a home, and the family had generally discussed that the children would eventually receive land from the parents. After Teresa decided to build a house on a particular site on the property, her father approved the site, obtained a building permit, and substantially helped construct the house, which Teresa completed at a cost of about $200,000. The trial court had found no express promise to convey a specifically defined parcel at a certain time, but the record also showed the parents' acquiescence, support, and encouragement of Teresa's building on that specific site. When Teresa later sought a deed, the parents refused to convey the land.

Issue

Whether the Dows' general promises to give Teresa land at some time, combined with their acquiescence, support, and encouragement of her construction of a substantial house on a specific parcel, created an enforceable promise under promissory estoppel. The related question was whether any such promise was too indefinite, especially as to timing, to be presently enforceable.

Rule

Under promissory estoppel, an enforceable promise may be implied from conduct as well as words. When a landowner makes general promises of future conveyance and then affirmatively allows, supports, and encourages construction of a substantial house on a specific parcel, the promisee's reliance may be foreseeable and reasonable, and those actions can demonstrate a present commitment to convey that property or refrain from challenging the promisee's ownership or use of it, even absent an explicit promise, consideration, or a fully articulated time term.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Vermont, Lena Ortiz grew up hearing her aunt, Marisol Vega, say that the back meadow would be Lena’s "when the time is right." After Lena chose a homesite in Brattleboro, Marisol walked the lot with her, approved the exact spot, obtained a building permit in Marisol’s own name, and spent weekends helping pour the foundation while Lena spent $180,000 building a house. After completion, Marisol refused to transfer the land.

If Lena sues on promissory estoppel, which is the strongest argument in her favor?

Explanation. The majority held that an enforceable promise may be implied from words and conduct together. General assurances of future transfer, plus affirmative acts allowing, supporting, and encouraging construction of a substantial house on a specific site, can demonstrate a present commitment to convey that property or refrain from disputing the promisee’s use of it. The absence of an explicit deed promise does not bar promissory estoppel.