D'Ulisse-Cupo v. Board of Directors of Notre Dame High School

Connecticut Supreme Court · Contracts

ContractsPromissory EstoppelNegligent MisrepresentationEmployment Contractspromissory estoppelclear and definite promisefuture employmentdefiniteness

Facts

The plaintiff was a nontenured teacher employed under a contract that expired in June 1983. Before the contract expired, the principal told her that everything looked fine for rehiring, a school notice stated that all present faculty members would be offered contracts for next year, and she was again told she would have a contract for the following year. The school later informed her that due to staff cutbacks her contract would not be renewed, although the principal also said the school would do everything possible to avoid discharging teachers and later hired an outside applicant for an available English position. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation based on these statements and her detrimental reliance.

Issue

Whether the school's oral and written statements about rehiring and efforts to avoid discharging teachers were sufficiently clear and definite promises to support promissory estoppel. Whether the complaint's allegation that the defendants negligently misrepresented facts to the plaintiff was sufficient to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

Rule

Under promissory estoppel, a promise is binding only if it is a clear and definite promise that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance, and that does induce such reliance so that injustice can be avoided only by enforcement. Statements that merely express an intention to enter a future contract, or that are vague and indefinite and omit essential employment terms, are not enforceable promises. For negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff need only allege false information supplied negligently and justifiable reliance causing loss; the complaint need not use the precise language of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 so long as it fairly apprises the defendant of the claim.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Lena Ortiz worked for Lakefront Arts Academy under a one-year teaching contract ending in June. In March, the principal told her, "Everything looks excellent for next year, so go ahead and start outlining your fall curriculum," but no new contract terms were discussed, and the school later declined to renew because enrollment fell.

If Lena sues on promissory estoppel after forgoing other job applications, which is the strongest argument against recovery?

Explanation. Promissory estoppel requires a clear and definite promise that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce reliance. A statement that things look good for next year is merely an expression of intent to contract in the future, not a present commitment. The majority also emphasized that missing material employment terms—such as duration, conditions, salary, and fringe benefits—make such statements too indefinite for contractual liability.