Ashford 3: - Week 2 - Discussion 1

Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Reference the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.

Noncontract Theories of Recovery

Respond to Chapter 9, Problem 4 on promissory estoppel: In July 2006, Hernandez was employed by Nestl as an industrial engineer. Hernandez learned of a job opening at UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., and applied for it. He interviewed with UPS representatives and received a written job offer from UPS for a management trainee position in the El Paso, Texas, Industrial Engineering Department. He was assured by UPS supervisors that the job was his, so he accepted the UPS offer and quit his job with Nestl. Hernandez terminated the lease on his apartment, discarded his furniture, and incurred moving and traveling expenses by relocating his family to El Paso. When he arrived at UPS, he was informed that his starting date would be delayed, but was assured once again that that he would be employed by UPS. Hernandez worked at UPS for three days, from September 5 through September 7, 2006. Hernandezs work duties consisted of attending UPS orientation for approximately two days and working at home one day. After the second day of orientation, a UPS supervisor told Hernandez that he should go home because he was not an official employee. The next week, a UPS human resources representative informed Hernandez that UPS would not honor the job offer. In addition, Hernandez was not paid for the hours worked from September 5 through September 7, 2006. Hernandez sued UPS on the ground of promissory estoppel to recover his out-of-pocket expenses. Will he win? Respond to at least two of your fellow students postings.

Respond Select: Mark selected as:

All

Collapse

Print View

Show Options

Hide Options

View Selected

Responses Response
218702042

Author
0

Date/Time*

216519413

week 2 Discussion #1

Email Earl Heltsley

9/24/2011 4:00:25 PM

For this weeks discussion we are asked to examine the case of Hernandez versus US Supply Chain. The case involves a job offer made to Hernandez by the representative of US Supply. The offer prompted Hernandez to sell or dispose of his furniture and similar items and move to the companys location in El Paso Texas and rent an apartment. Hernandez quit his job at Nestle to prepare for his new position upon receiving the written job offer from US Supply. Once in El Paso Hernandez went to 2 orientation days and worked 1 day from home before being told by a supervisor on his 3rd day at an orientation meeting that he did not work for US Supply Chain and that he would no longer be needed. The question we need to answer is did Hernandez have a valid contract with US supply chain based on the written offer and should he receive compensation from them for his expenses incurred from the leaving his job and moving to Texas. To determine Hernandezs case we need to look at the basics of contracts and determine the elements of what constitutes a contract. To have a contract we have a certain number of elements that must be met. They include the following. (1) Getting to a Contract

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Negotiation Agreement? (offer and acceptance) Voluntary? Consideration Capacity

I felt that these 5 elements would be my best way to determine if there had been a contract and so I examined for each of them in this case. There had been a meeting about Hernandezs employment and a written offer had been given to him so a sort of negotiation had taken place. The offer was accepted because Hernandez went to work in El Paso and started orientation. Both parties seem to have entered into this arrangement voluntarily and both had the capacity to make the contract. The problem is that no money ever exchanged hands between them so there was no contract. Hernandez was never paid anything or given money to relocate no deposit or anything of that nature means we do not have a contract. However the case goes beyond that and certainly we can see that Hernandez had a good faith expectation that being given a written offer of employment from a recruiter that he had a job at US Supply. This created an implied contract with him and by the recruiter handing him an offer he had in fact proof of a promise of employment and therefore promissory estoppel applies. (2) The concept of promissory estoppel or foreseeable reliance deals with promises made by one party that may not meet all the elements of a contract. The fact that this offer had been given from an employee of US Supply who was in power to make such a promise means that Hernandez acted correctly when he decided to rely on their promise of employment. Hernandez is entitled to compensation for US Supplies failure to live up to its promise and should be entitled to compensation for acting in good faith in regards to their promise. Hernandez is therefore entitled to his moving expenses and compensation for quitting his job at Nestle in anticipation of starting work at US Supply. The case of Hernandez versus the US Supply chain is a good example to us in that we can easily demonstrate that promises are enforceable in much the same way as contracts. The concept I believe we can draw from this case is that by making a statement or agreement we are in fact entering into an promissory agreement to do something and we can be held accountable for those actions under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. I found the case online and the court found the same doctrine to apply. (3) This doctrine and case although applied to employment law has sweeping effects in that as a corporation or employees thereof we may have the ability to make oral or verbal promises that are less than a contract that others may rely upon as legally binding that fall short of actually becoming contracts. The offer itself could have been withdrawn verbally however being in writing would have been more appropriate and a set guideline in the original offer that expressly stated the terms for its withdrawal may have made a difference and it underscores the need to cover our bases when making or accepting any offer.

Reference:

(1) Business Law, By: Mallor, McGraw-Hill Primus, Copyright 2010, page 291 (2) Business law, by: Mallor, McGraw-Hill primus, Copyright 2010, page 302-03 (3) HERNANDEZ v. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC., 496 F.Supp.2d 778 (2007) United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division., July 13, 2007.

Respond
218702042 216519413

RE: week 2 Discussion #1 Hi Earl,

Email Instructor Starcher

9/28/2011 7:12:16 PM

Why do administrative agencies typically possess a broad mix of governmental powers resembling those associated with the three traditional branches of government? :)

Respond
219350446 216568925 0

WK 2 Discussion 1 - Richard Brooks

Email Richard Brooks

9/24/2011 5:55:12 PM

According to Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, and Langvardt (2010), in numerous situations one person may rely on a promise made by another even though the promise and surrounding circumstances are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that a contract has been created because one or more of the required elements is missing. The UPS Supply Chain Solution Inc. offered a job to Hernandez, according to promissory estoppels. There must be a promise, The promise must justifiably rely on the promises the reliance normally must be of a substantial and definite character. Justice will be better served by the enforcement of the promise. Additionally, Hernandez received a written job offer from the UPS indicating the job offered. The contract fulfilled from his side and accepted the offer. Under the doctrine of detrimental reliance a person who has reasonably relied on the promise of another can often obtain some measure of recovery. The UPS chain solution violated the legal agreement to Hernandez and he is entitled for recovery his out of pocket expenses. In addition, the company may pay more to his suffering, which is by breach of contract. Reference: Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The ethical, global,and ecommerce environment (14th ed.). New York : Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Respond
219350446 216568925

RE: WK 2 Discussion 1 - Richard Brooks Richard,

Email Nathan Bibb

9/29/2011 9:36:45 PM

I am in full agreement with you. UPS did breach the contract and Mr. Hernandez is entitled to his out-of-pocket expenses. I also think he should sue for further damages considering he quit his previous job, possibly so did his wife, had to pull his children out of school, and the countless other inconveniences that UPS caused him by not honoring the job offer they gave in writing. I think he would have a solid case bringing all the hardships he incurred to court to sue for further damages.

Respond
219045150,21896 217925909 0

What do you think?

Email Instructor Starcher

9/27/2011 9:16:48 AM

Why do you think that the concept of Promissory Estoppel was created in the first place? Toni

Respond
219045150 217925909

RE: What do you think?

Email Lisa Fanton

9/29/2011 12:51:04 PM

Why do you think that the concept of Promissory Estoppel was created in the first place? Promise Estoppel was created to fill a void. Promissory Estoppel assures that people that promise to pay in good faith actually do so. Unlike contract law, there is no binding agreement, just a consideration and reliance on a promise. Promissory Estoppel is used to enforce that promise. In Ricketts v. Scothorn, a grandfathers promise to pay his granddaughter interest on a demand note he gave her so that she would not have to work was enforced against him after she had quit her job in reliance on his promise (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, Langvardt, 2010, p. 302). Promissory Estoppel was created to help and protect people like the granddaughter in this case. Mallor, J. P., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, T., Langvardt, A. W. (2010) Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc p. 302.

Respond
218962767 217925909

RE: What do you think?

Email John Murphy

9/29/2011 9:37:21 AM

After doing some research and reading up on the original concept for Promissory Estoppel. I found that it originated in Central London in the case of Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130. The case covered a promise to reduce rent during the war so that people could afford to live as well as fill the otherwise vacant homes. After the war was over, Central London Property Trust sued for the rest of the rent due to them during the war at the original full rate. I think that this was a good case because just because people were starting to come back from the war and find work does not mean that they had all this money saved up to pay the original rent, plus they were promised that they only needed to pay half rent duing the rough times. http://ceds.vu.edu.au/buslaw/centrallon.htm

Respond
218702498,21909 218541507 0

Hernandez v. UPS

Email Domingo Burgos

9/28/2011 1:29:18 PM

Mr. Hernandez, Edgar was offered and accepted a job by UPS that require him to move from Chicago, IL to El Paso TX. Mr. Hernandez resigned from his job, packed the family and all his belongings and moved to TX to start his new job. After he arrives in El Paso and after delaying his starting date, Mr. Hernandez attended the UPS orientation for two days and after the orientation he was told to go home. Mr. Hernandez was contacted by Human Resources and informed that UPS will not honor the job offer. Mr. Hernandez sued UPS on the grounds of promissory estoppels for his out-ofpocket expenses. Promissory Estoppels According to Cornel Law School is the doctrine allowing recovery on a promise made without consideration when the reliance on the promise was reasonable, and the promisee relied to his or her detrimentis. Nolos Plain English dictionary defines Promissory Estoppels as a legal principle that prevents a person who made a promise from reneging when someone

else has reasonably relied on the promise and will suffer a loss if the promise is broken. Its clear that Mr. Hernandez relied and acted on the job offer by UPS. He quit his job, packed and moved to TX on the premises that he was going to start a new job with UPS. Its not hard to see and understand that Mr. Hernandez would not leave a job, pack his family and move to another state that is hundreds of miles away unless he truly believed and relied on the job offer made (in writing) by the executives at UPS in Chicago. Mr. Hernandez will not only suffer from losing his job, but also all the monies he spend moving his family and himself to TX. UPS can get away with terminating Mr. Hernandez employment under the provisions of the Texas at will employment doctrine. According to Lawyers.com the Texas At Will means that any employee could be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. In this case the employer (UPS) termination of Mr. Hernandez is totally legal. In the other hand the expenses the he incurred trying to get to Texas to his new job and any other expenses incur by Mr. Hernandez until he can find a new employment should be paid by UPS. In this case the Texas court used a three-prong test that required Mr. Hernandez to show: 1. That UPS made a promise 2. Foreseeability by UPS that Plaintiff would rely upon the promise. 3. That Plaintiff suffered substantial detrimental reliance upon UPS's promise. Mr. Hernandez should have no problem proven that UPS make him an offer and that base on that offer he quit his job, packed and relocate his family to TX and that he suffer substantial monetary loses by relaying on the job offer by UPS.

References Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T. & Langvardt, A. W. (2010). Business Law: The Ethical Global and E-Commerce Environment, (14th Ed). New York, NY, McGraw-

Hill/Irwin Cornell University Law School, (2011). Promissory Estoppel. Retrieved 28 September 2011 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel

Leagle, (July, 13, 2007). HERNANDEZ v. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC. Retrieved 28 September 2011 from http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=20071274496FSupp2d778_111 95.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7

Nolo, (2011). Promissory Estoppel. Retrieved 28 September 2011 from http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/promissory-estoppelterm.html

Respond
218702498 218541507

RE: Hernandez v. UPS Hi Domingo ,

Email Instructor Starcher

9/28/2011 7:13:01 PM

Does the fact that administrative agencies have all three branches of government violate the separation of powers?

Respond
219095830 218541507

RE: Hernandez v. UPS

Email Earl Heltsley

9/29/2011 2:46:29 PM

Great job on your answer for discussion I think the entire concept of promissory estoppel is important for us in that we can see that we can enter into something similar to a contract when we make a promise and held liable when others rely on our offers to make financial choices. I think this concept allows us hold companies to the promises of there employees if they are sufficiently empowered to make offers and we have a reasonable belief in there ability to deliver on an offer that is not exactly a contract but can hold the same effect.

Respond
219362718 218731141 0

discussion 1

Email Carl Wade

9/28/2011 7:54:03 PM

The majority of people do not understand the significance of a contract and what it entails exactly, in terms of the basic elements. When Mr. Hernandez accepted the job offer he obviously though that he entered into a legal agreement with UPS Supply Chain Solutions. This is an interesting case because the definition of a tradition contract is rather straight forward, according to Mallor et al. (2010), unless the law specifically requires a certain kind of contract to be in writing, an oral contract that can be proven is as legally enforceable as a written one (pg291). Obviously not all the elements of a traditional contract were satisfied by the agreements that Mr. Hernandez and UPS entered. However there clearly was a promise of a job offer from the Promisor (UPS) and an acceptance which was evident by him quitting his previous job, terminating his lease and getting rid of his household belongings hence the reason why he is suing UPS on the grounds of a promissory estoppel. This acceptance turned into an injustice (the termination by HR after only three days of work) for Mr. Hernandez (the promisee) who clearly relied on the promise from UPS. The elements of a promissory estoppel where satisfied and therefore he has a very good chance of winning this case. The elements of a

promissory estoppel are a promise that the promisor should foresee is likely to induce reliance, reliance on the promise by the promisee, and injustice as a result of that reliance (Mallor et al, 2010, pg303). By the definitions of both there are obviously differences between the traditional contract and promissory estoppel and it appears that the promissory estoppel would be easier to prove in the court of law. References Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J, Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment (14th ed.). New York, NY: Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Respond
219362718 218731141

RE: discussion 1

Email Nathan Bibb

9/29/2011 9:54:37 PM

This is a little off topic of the case at hand but when I learned what promissory estoppel was it instantly brought a situation to mind that occurred between a myself and one of my best friends. I had a beater 1996 Honda Accord 2 years ago and was in the market to buy a new car. My best friend was thinking of selling his 1995 Ford Bronco and purchasing a new vehicle. He had put a lot of work into the truck and it was in fantastic condition. He does pretty well for himself and offered to sell me the car for $4,000 which was well below market value. When the price was agreed upon we were at dinner in La Jolla in San Diego. There were 5 people at the dinner that could have corroborated my story and I think there was a hand shake. I also gave him a check for $4,000 that evening to hold onto. He would have to find a new car before the transaction took place but the deal was made. I sold my car and had to share my girlfriends vehicle for about 2 months, I did have a scooter to get around but it was still a strain. My friend looked for a replacement vehicle during this time and decided in the end he was not willing to sell the car since he could not find a replacement at a good price. I ended up having to purchase a newer vehicle at the price tag of $16,000, slightly higher than what I wanted to pay. Looking back at the situation I believe I could have sued on the grounds of promissory estoppel. I would have still liked to have that Bronco but I am very happy with my new Honda. If you are wondering, were still buddies, it was just a slight inconvenience. Plus, friends dont

usually sue each other until they get a little older, or their companion makes them

Respond
219285039 218739228 0

Wk 2Discussion1

Email Clarissa Williams

9/28/2011 8:05:24 PM

Yes, I think Hernandez will win, because this was an act of unfairness. If the UPS human resources representative knew that the position was offered on a trial basis, that should have been stated up front and not as a promise. Hernandez was totally relying on promises that were made to him. According to Mallor, Barnes, Bowers & Langvardt (2010), the promissory estoppels was developed to deal with the unfairness that would sometimes result from the strict application of traditional contract principles. In numerous situations one person may rely on a promise made by another even though the promise and surrounding circumstances are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that a contract has been created because one or more of the required elements is missing. To allow the person who made such a promise to argue that no contract was created would sometimes work an injustice on the person who relied on the promise. Reference
Mallor, J.P. Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment (14th ed.). New York : Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Respond
219285039 218739228

RE: Wk 2-

Email Natalie Abdou

9/29/2011 8:11:34 PM

Discussion1 Hi Clarissa, I agree, it was unjust for UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. to provide a written job offer to Hernandez and unexpectedly decide not hire him when he relocated his family and moved all his belongings. The written job offer is what enabled Hernandez to sue the company, because as you mentioned, this written contract is form of promissory estoppel, where a promise was made in writing and then not followed through. Thanks for your post, Natalie Abdou

Respond
218786836 0

Noncontract Theories of Recovery Facts:

Email Natalie Abdou

9/28/2011 9:12:10 PM

In July 2006, Hernandez was employed by Nestle as an industrial engineer. After learning about a job opening at UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Hernandez applied for a management trainee position in the El Paso, Texas, Industrial Engineering department. After receiving a written job offer, Hernandez relocated to El Paso, Texas to start this new position. Hernandez worked for three days with two days in orientation and one day working from home. After a week, Hernandez was informed by the human resources department that he did not get the job after all and was not paid for those three days worked. Issue: The issue is whether Hernandez should receive reimbursement for the out-of-pocket expenses and compensation for the three days worked. After receiving a written job offer and working three days, the human resources department at UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. informed Hernandez that he ended up not obtaining the job and in addition, was not paid for the days he worked. Rule: Hernandez utilizes the promissory estoppel doctrine against UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. in effort to recover out-of-pocket expenses and receive compensation for the three days worked. Under the promissory estoppel doctrine, one person may rely on a promise made by another even though the promise and surrounding circumstances are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that a contract had been created because one or more of the required elements is

missing (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2010, p. 302). The promise for the job position was made through the written job offer Hernandez received. Analysis: UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. offered a job to Hernandez. After quitting his job and relocating to El Paso, Texas, Hernandez worked for three days and then was informed he did not receive the job after all. Hernandez sued UPS on the ground of promissory estoppel and he should win the case because the written job offer Hernandez received was a contract that basically stated that the job was Hernandezs if he agreed to it and he did. The decision to offer a job and then take away a job in time duration of a few days while still having the individual work and go through orientation is unjust. There was no in-depth reasoning provided for the decision to not honor the job offer. Conclusion: Hernandez should win the case and receive a reimbursement for the out-of-pocket expenses and compensation for the three days worked.

Mallor, D.L., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business law: The ethical, global, and ecommerce environment(14th ed.). New york: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Respond
219211679 218888586 0

Noncontract Theories of Recovery

Email Keiko Williams

9/29/2011 3:05:24 AM

There are necessary elements for establishing to invoke promissory estoppel. There is a promisor UPS; a promise Mr. Hernandez; economic loss relocation expenses and unpaid compensation. First, he would not have quit his previous job and would not have relocated if UPS didnt offer him a job with a written job offer. Second, he was informed that he would be employed by UPS more than one time from more than one person. Third, he actually worked for UPS from September 5 through September 7. Mr. Hernandez should be entitled to moving expenses and the unpaid working hours from September 5 through September 7. He may be entitled to the value of the promise since he took the risk in quitting his previous job because of the UPS offer.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel

Respond
219211679 218888586

RE: Noncontract Theories of Recovery Hi Keiko,

Email Instructor Starcher

9/29/2011 6:34:34 PM

Why do the administrative agencies need all three powers? :)

Respond
219091588 218943849 0

In written!

Email John Murphy

9/29/2011 8:48:06 AM

The facts of the case of Hernandez vs. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. is as followed; in July 2006, Hernandez was employed by Nestle. After learning about a job opening at the UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Hernandez applied for a position in El Paso, Texas. After receiving a written job offer, Hernandez sold all his stuff pack up his family and moved to El Paso, Texas to start this new position. Hernandez only worked for three days. After a week, Hernandez was informed by the human resources department that he did not get the job after all and was not paid for those three days worked. The issue is that Hernandez should receive any financial reimbursement for the expenses that he had occurred moving and any back pay for the three days worked. Even after receiving a written job offer and working three days at UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. The human resources department informed Hernandez that he was not getting the job originally offered to him in written and would not get even get paid for the days he worked. Promissory Estoppel is defined as one person may rely on a promise made by another even though the promise and surrounding circumstances are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that a contract had been created because one or more of the required elements is missing (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2010, p.

302). Since the job offer promised to Hernandez and was in written. Hernandez could prove this he was treated unfairly under Promissory Estoppel. Hernandez should win this case. In my line of work we tend to say nothing is certain until it is in written. People will often say whatever it take to get someone to complete a job, but it is not official until I have it in written. I currently keep a Cover Your Ass file on my desktop at work were I keep all my emails that I have sent as well as received just in case people try to put words in my mouth and hold me accountable for something I did not say. Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The ethical, global, and ecommerce environment (14th International ed.). New York: Irwin/McGraw Hill. ISBN: 978-0-07337764-3.

Respond
219091588 218943849

RE: In written!

Email Earl Heltsley

9/29/2011 2:36:50 PM

Hi great answer did you feel Hernandez should receive money in addition to the 3 days pay from US supply and moving expenses for leaving Nestle. He obviously wanted to leave and find another job but would he have left if he had not received the offer. Should he receive several weeks or months wages until he can find another similar job?

Respond
219035974 0

discussion 1

Email Lisa Fanton

9/29/2011 12:30:08 PM

In July 2006, Hernandez was employed by Nestl as an industrial engineer. Hernandez learned of a job opening at UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., and applied for it. He interviewed with UPS representatives and received a written job offer from UPS for a management trainee position in the El Paso, Texas, Industrial Engineering Department. He was assured by UPS supervisors that the job was his, so he accepted the UPS offer and quit his job with Nestl. Hernandez terminated the lease on his apartment, discarded his furniture, and incurred moving and traveling expenses by relocating his family to El Paso. When he arrived at UPS, he was informed that his starting date would be delayed, but was assured once again that that he would be employed by UPS. Hernandez worked at UPS for three days, from September 5 through September 7, 2006. Hernandezs work duties

consisted of attending UPS orientation for approximately two days and working at home one day. After the second day of orientation, a UPS supervisor told Hernandez that he should go home because he was not an official employee. The next week, a UPS human resources representative informed Hernandez that UPS would not honor the job offer. In addition, Hernandez was not paid for the hours worked from September 5 through September 7, 2006. Hernandez sued UPS on the ground of promissory estoppel to recover his out-of-pocket expenses. Will he win? The first thing we have to consider is if this is a contract. There are five parts to a contract. The offer, the acceptance of the offer, the consideration of the offer, the capacity of the parties to contract the offer and whether or not the offer is legal (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, Langvardt, 2010, p. 292). In this case all of these criteria have been met. An express and an implied contract were created between Mr. Hernandez and UPS with the written job offer and the repeated assurances of employment. An express contract is created when the terms of the contract have been stated either orally or in writing, while in an implied contract is reached when the contract is formed when the facts and circumstances imply the contract (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, Langvardt, 2010, p. 295). In this particular case it is a valid contract. A valid contract is one that meets all of the legal requirements for a binding contract (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, Langvardt, 2010, p. 295). Because it is a valid contract, it is enforceable in court. This means that Mr. Hernandez can sue UPS and yes, he has good chance to win. Mallor, J. P., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, T., Langvardt, A. W. (2010) Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc p. 292. Ibid, p. 295.

Respond
219060996 0

Noncontract Theories of Recovery

Email Jo Perkins

9/29/2011 1:27:03 PM

Mr. Hernandez should successfully win the case because he was informed, not only in person, but also in a written job offer that he had the position. I am so very sure that the written job sure provided signatures from both parties as means of a valid contract. Promissory estoppel allows a party to recover on a promise, eventhough, that promise was made without consideration. It prevents, or estops, a person from arguing that his or her promise should be upheld. It also requires that reliance on the promise was reasonable, and that the person trying to enforce the promise actually relied on the promise to his or her detriment. (www.google.com). I surely think that Mr. Hernandez has a valid contract and will win the case. Usually in cases of promises or contracts, the law requires that a party receive consideration for the deal. Consideration is some type of value that is being exchanged between the parties. That "value" can take the form of affirmatively doing something; refraining from doing something , also called forebearance; or making a promise in return. Mr. Hernandez had an offer, he accepted with consideration and I think that consideration is the written offer. The offer wasn't just orally, but it was a written offer. Yes, Mr. Hernandez has sufficient grounds for winning the case. www.google.com: "What is promissory estoppel?"

Respond
219073119 0

Noncontract Theories Barbara Miller

Email Barbara Miller

9/29/2011 1:55:01 PM

According to US Legal Promissory estoppel by legal definition is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. With this definition in mind, Hernandez in my opinion has legal ground to sue UPS and would win the case. Not only did he have verbal commitment that the job was his, he also had a written job offer that he accepted. Upon this written and verbal agreement Hernandez vacated his home and moved his family to Texas. He then was verbally assured again that he would be employed by UPS. When UPS did not honor this agreement they were liable. Reference http:uslegal.com Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The ethical, global,and ecommerce environment (14th ed.). New York : Irwin/McGraw

Respond
219518080 219080057 0

Noncontract Theories of Recovery

Email Luqman Howard

9/29/2011 2:10:38 PM

Mr. Hernandez did have a written job offer from UPS that confirmed their intent to offer him a job and was also contacted by a supervisor which ensured him the job was his; the basis for promissory estoppels seemed to have been satisfied. Mr. Hernandezs situation was unfortunate; he seemed to have placed all of his eggs in one basket, for the lack of a better term. He went in head first with no back-up

plan should things not work out, a better approach would have been to take on the mind-set that nothing is a sure thing and approached the situation with more caution, leaving himself a way out and not being left with nothing. Mr. Hernandez did have a written job offer from UPS that confirmed their intent to offer him a job and was also contacted by a supervisor which ensured him the job was his His situation however does meet the criteria for UPS to sued on the grounds of promissory estoppels; UPS made a promise that Mr. Hernandez believed in good faith to be true, he terminated his lease, quit his job, and moved his family all of which caused him to incur expenses. UPS could have did themselves a favor by not allowing Mr. Hernandez to attend the two days of training and one day of working at home if they were not serious about offering him employment; UPS should pay Mr. Hernandez no matter if they were bound by law, its the right thing to do, he showed up to what he reasonably believed was his place of employment and performed a service, training and should be compensated. References Hernandez v.UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. September 27, 2011.
https://www.leagle.com.Retreived

Respond
219518080 219080057

RE: Noncontract Theories of Recovery

Email Jake Nguyen

9/30/2011 9:57:52 AM

Mr. Hernandez was mailed a written offer from the UPS representatives and he had accepted their offer to take the job. In addition, Mr. Hernandez has also started hi on the job training with UPS for two days. They did not state to him a valid reason why they decided to parted ways with him which makes me kind of suspicious that there might be something further to this case then was written. Though based on the available evidence UPS should not only pay for his training wages but also his moving and living expenses.

Respond
219100049 0

Lynn Cawley Week 2 Discussion 1

Email Lynn Cawley

9/29/2011 2:55:59 PM

I absolutely believe that Mr. Hernandez would win a suit based on promissory estoppel. First, there is not contract as there was no consideration at that point (based upon the information that we were given; if there was some sort of discussion in the written job offer about compensation, does that constitute consideration?). Therefore, it was not a breach of contract situation. However, a written job offer could certainly be construed as a promise to be relied upon, especially since he received both written and verbal assurances of its validity. As he took actions such as leaving his previous job, breaking his apartment lease, selling his personal belongings and incurring the expenses involved with moving his family to another city only AFTER he received the written offer and verbal assurances, he definitely has grounds for suing and winning a promissory estoppel case. As discussed in our text, promissory estoppels protects reliance, rather than enforcing a contract (Mallor, Barnes, Bowman, Langvardt, p. 302303, 2010). Mallors, J., Barnes, A., Bowers, T., Langvardt, A. (2010). Business Law: The Ethical, Global and E-Commerce Environment, 14th edition. McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Respond
219139826 0

Promissory Estoppel

Email Vincent Elewodalu

9/29/2011 4:24:51 PM

Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that enables a promise to be enforced even when no consideration has been given. Consideration is an essential element in the formation of a contract. It may be a promise to carry out an action or a promise to refrain from carrying out an act that one is legally entitled to perform. Consideration may be "executory" which means that action has not yet been performed. It may be executed which means the party has already carried out the action which was promised. Consideration must be sufficient, that is, it must have value that can be objectively determined. The principles of promissory estoppel can only be used 'as a shield and not as a sword'. This means that it can only be used as a defense against a claim made by a promisor. The enforceability of promises, the intention to create a legal relation, consideration, promissory estoppel must include an 'honor clause' in a written agreement, which has the effect of rebutting the normal presumption of an intention to create legal relations in a commercial

agreement. Its effect is to render the agreement binding in honor only, so that it will not be a legally binding agreement. The case of Hernandez is seen to have satisfied an essential element of consideration as he has executed his own part of the contract in view of the management trainee position offer given to him in writing, his two-day orientation on the job and hours worked from September 5-7, 2006. His action does satisfy the provisions of the statute of : Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Section 90 (1932) which provides that "A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires." The consideration here has a sufficient value that can be objectively determined. With reference to the above, Hernandez is not only expected to win his suit, but equally entitled to recoup all his out-of-pocket expenses plus hours worked with UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. References: Beyond Promissory Estoppel: Contract Law and the "Invisible handshake" , by Daniel A. Faber, John H. Matheson. pg 903-947. The Yale Law Journal, Volume 78, Number 3, Jan/1969: Promissory Estoppel and Traditional Contract Doctrine, pg 343-387

Respond
219179883 0

Week Two Discussion One

Email Torrey James

9/29/2011 5:43:15 PM

According to Mallor (2010), Hernandez was provided with a written job offer at UPS. As a result, he quit his job, uprooted his family and moved to the location where his new job was located. Upon arrival, he was advised that his start date was being pushed and after attending a few days of training he was advised that the offer was being revoked. He sued UPS on the grounds of promissory estoppels, which states, Offeree foreseeably and reasonably relies on offer being held open, and will suffer injustice if it is revoked (p. 353). In Hernandezs case, he was provided with a written job offer, and he had no

reason to believe that the offer would be revoked. As a result, he took life changing actions, relocated himself and his family and quit his job only to have the offer later revoked. In accordance with promissory estoppel, he will likely win his case against UPS. UPS acted unjustly in providing the offer in writing and led this individual to experience extreme hardship and lost opportunity. When organizations act in such a way, the law holds them accountable to repay what damages they can that they cost the individual. Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The ethical, global,and ecommerce environment (14th ed.). New York : Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Respond
219286236 219196738

RE:
219211106

Email Natalie Abdou

0

9/29/2011 8:13:07 PM

For further discussion...

Email Instructor Starcher

9/29/2011 6:33:40 PM

Class, Are Administrative Agencies constitutional?

Respond
219212010 0

Resources...

Email Instructor Starcher

9/29/2011 6:35:00 PM

Please remember to use scholarly references for your discussion posts and assignments! :)

Respond
219221828 0

Noncontract Theories of Recovery_hleggans

Email Hazel Leggans

9/29/2011 6:49:02 PM

Noncontract Theories of Recovery. Respond to Chapter 9, Problem 4 on promissory estoppel: According to text, the basic parts of Promissory Estoppel are a promise that the promisor should foresee is likely to induce reliance, reliance on the promise by the

pormisee, and injustice as a result of that reliance (Marlor, et al, 2010, p. 303). Basically there are voluntary promises between the offeror and the offeree that are combined to create a contract (Marlor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2010). The fact that he was not paid is absurd, let alone UPS letting him go without him being given a chance. Apparently the contract would need to be scrutinized to determine the areas in which the contract had been broken in this particular case. In my opinion, Hernandez should win this case against UPS on the ground of promissory estoppels to recover his out-of-pocket expenses since it is obvious that Hernandez accepted the offer of the contract by entering the contract, accepting the terms, and his communication to accept the position. References Mallor, J., Barnes, A., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A. (2010). Business Law: The ethical, global, and ecommerce environment (14th ed.). New York : Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Respond
219231342 0

week 2

Email Lashaunda Jones

9/29/2011 7:02:14 PM

According to Mallor, Barnes, Bowers & Langvardt (2007), the elements of the promissory estoppel are a promise that the promisor should foresee is likely to induce reliance on the promise by the promisee, and injustice as a result (p.286). Facts: The facts are Hernandez quit his job at Nestle' because he received a written job offer from UPS to become an employee. On September 5 through September 7, 2006 Hernandez moved his family to El Paso and began work for UPS; to later find out he was never given the job at UPS. The issue at hand is Hernandez feels UPS did not honor the written job offer and is suing UPS claiming promissory estoppel. Issue: The legal issue that is being reviewed and analyzed is did UPS commit promissory estoppel. Rule: According to Mallor, Barnes, Bowers & Langvardt (2007), One person may rely on the promise made by another even though the promise and surrounding circumstances are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that a contract has been created because one or more of the required elements is missing. Analysis: UPS made it clear to Hernandez that he was chosen for the job; UPS should have expected that Hernandez would quite his job and move his family to El Paso after receiving the written job offer; Hernandez did rely on UPS to stand by their offer; Instead UPS told Hernandez he should go home because he did get the job after working two days for UPS; and the promissory estoppel should be

used to prove there was injustice. Conclusion: Will Hernandez win? I believe Hernandez will win. Because UPS did not honor the written offer and UPS gave Hernandez every right to believe he was hired for the job (despite the delay in his start date) because they still allowed him to work for their company. Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2007). Business Law: The ethical, global,and ecommerce environment (13th ed.). New York : Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Respond
219290567 0

Noncontract theory of recovery

Email Ella Mae Marion

9/29/2011 8:18:33 PM

Facts: In this case, Hernandez is suing UPS because he believes that he is owed a reimbursement for out of pocket expenses and wages for hours worked due to a withdrawn job offer. In 2006, he had been offered a written and verbal job offer from UPS. With these promises, he quit his then-current position and incurred several moving expenses. UPS had also allowed him to attend two days of training and complete one day of work at home, but then withdrew the employment offer. They refused to pay Mr. Hernandez for the expenses incurred and the hours he worked. Issue: The legal issue here is whether or not the written and/or verbal agreement between Mr. Hernandez and UPS created a foreseeable reliance that would make Mr. Hernandez actions (and the costs of those actions) dependent on UPS upholding their promises. Rule: This situation would refer to the idea of promissory estoppel. According to Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, and Langvardt (2010), promissory estoppel occurs when one party makes a promise to another party that induces action or forbearance. The promisee relies on the promiser to uphold the agreement; and when the agreement is not upheld, it creates an injustice upon the promisee. Analysis: In this specific case, the promiser is UPS because they had a written and verbal promise of employment to Mr. Hernandez, the promisee. Based on this promise, he broke his residential lease, incurred moving expenses, attended training, and clocked working hours. UPS breached their promise when they did not hire on Mr. Hernandez or compensate him for his expenses that were acted upon because of their promise. Conclusion: Mr. Hernandezs situation fulfills the idea of promissory estoppel, so UPS should at least compensate him for the expenses incurred and the hours worked, thus he

should win the case against UPS. Reference: Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business law: The ethical, global, and ecommerce environment (14th ed.). New York : Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Respond
219329287 0

Noncontract Theories of Recovery

Email Joyce Godwin-Moore

9/29/2011 9:07:53 PM

The issue in this case is that Hernandez received a written job offer, assuring him a position with UPS. In addition to this written agreement, it was communicated to him that he would be employed with UPS. The legal issue to be analyzed is whether or not Hernandez is due to be compensated for the days he worked after UPS refused to honor the written job offer. The contract between Hernandez and UPS was bilateral contract. In a bilateral contract both parties exchange promises and the contract is formed as soon as the promises is exchanged (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers & Langvardt 2010). Hernandez desired to work for UPS, he applied for the job in good faith, and UPS assured him a job by a written offer. After new employee training, a few days of work, and a week elapse, Hernandez is told that the written job offer would not be honored. However, according to law, one can conclude that UPS must compensate Hernandez for the work he completed while under the contract made by both parties. Reference: Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The ethical, global,and ecommerce environment (14th ed.). New York : Irwin/McGraw Hill. ISBN: 978-0-07337764-3.

Respond
219347422 0

Promissory Estoppel

Email Nathan Bibb

9/29/2011 9:32:22 PM

Mr. Hernandez interviewed with UPS and received a written job offer from the company in an area that he did not currently reside. Under the expectation he would have a position waiting for him in El Paso, he relocated himself, his family, and incurred relocation expenses. He has a very strong case to make against UPS. Promissory estoppel is different from a traditional contract because it protects reliance on an offer instead of protecting a written agreement or bargain. If Mr. Hernandez was suing for the job offer UPS did not honor, promissory estoppel would not apply since that was a contractual agreement. That would be a different type of infraction. What he is suing for is the out-of-pocket moving expenses he incurred because he was relying on having the position at UPS when he arrived in El Paso. Business Law states, Promissory estoppel protects reliance promissory estoppel is now being used by the courts to prevent offerors from revoking their offers, to enforce indefinite promises, and to enforce oral promises that would ordinarily have been in writing (Mallor, Barnes,

Bowers, 2010, p. 303). The contract for the position was in writing but this is not what Mr. Hernandez is suing for. UPS is responsible for Mr. Hernandezs out-of-pocket expenses and he should win his case based upon the promise of employment, his reliance upon the position, and the expenses he incurred to procure the move. Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The ethical, global,and ecommerce environment (14th ed.). New York : Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Respond
219537115 219351431 0

Noncontract Theories of Recovery

Email Monica Minissale

9/29/2011 9:38:12 PM

Promissory Estoppel is defined as "one person may rely on a promise made by another even though the promise surrounding circumstances are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that a contract had been created because one or more of the required elements is missing." (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, and Langvardt, 2010. p. 302). In this case, Hernandez should win the case. The job offer he received was in written form. It wasn't as if he acted on relocating his entire family (literally across the country) just based on someone's word on the offer. I believe there is also another strong argument to be made about employment law violations for time worked that he was not paid for. Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The ethical, global, and ecommerce environment. (14th International ed.) New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Respond
219537115 219351431

RE: Noncontract Theories of Recovery

Email Jake Nguyen

9/30/2011 10:50:18 AM

Accordinng to the USLegal website, the legal definition of promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be a enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. Promissory estoppel is used to enforce charitable gift pledges where the charity relies on them. It arises from a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forebearance in binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Therefore, based off the definition of promissory estoppel, Mr. Hernandez should win his case on the ground of promissory estoppel. UPS should pay for his training wages, moving and living expenses, and financial hardship rusulting from him quiting his job.

Respond
219414771 0

Noncontract Theories of RecoveryCenetta Davis

Email Cenetta Davis

9/29/2011 11:44:55 PM

Mr. Hernandez will win his case against UPS Chain Solutions, Inc. He was interview with UPS personnel; at this point he received a written job offer for a management trainee position in the El Paso, Texas , Industrial Engineering Department. Mr. Hernandez took serval actions after he received the written job offer such as: quitting his job with Nestle, terminated the lease on his apartment, discarded his furniture, incurred traveling and moving expenses, and relocated his family. In addition UPS required for him to work for a specific number of hours with their company. In the law of contracts, Promissory estoppel is the doctrine that provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present. Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisorone who makes a promisemakes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promiseeone to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detrimentthat is, an economic lossensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. In this case, Promissory estoppel will be applied by the court because UPS has made a promise to Hernandez to give him a job and even though there may not be an enforceable contract, Hernandez has incurred expense and hardship based on a promise made by the UPS personnel. The court will examine if UPS actually intended Hernandez to join the company at Texas, and Hernandez must satisfy the court that all the steps he took were reasonable. That Hernandez would suffer a loss if UPS withdrew its offer. Finally, the judge will require either UPS accept Hernandez as an employee or pay the cost incurred by Hernandez to joint their company in Texas. Reference Mallor, J. (2010). Business Law: The Ethical, Global and E-Commerce Environment. 14th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. "Promissory Estoppel". (2011). The Free Dictionary By Farlex. Retrieved September 25, 2011, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel.

Respond
219638333 219426548 0

Week 2 Discussion 1

Email Roland Jackson

9/30/2011 12:30:37 AM

Facts: Hernandez was offered a position at UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. in El Paso. He had an interview and was given a written offer for the position. He moved to El Paso and was told that the job was no longer offered. He is suing for his moving expenses Issue: The major issue at hand was the fact that Hernandez was offered a job which he accepted. Once he moved to El Paso, he was told that UPS would no longer honor the job offer and they would not pay for his two days of work nor cover his moving and out-of-pocket expenses.

Rule: UPS is being sued on the grounds of revoking a promissory estoppel which the promisee foresees an action which results in a reliance. Analysis: A job was posted that there was an open position for UPS and they held an interview which resulted in a written job offer. After being reassured by UPS supervisors, the job was his.The job offer was revoked after the fact of Hernandez quitting his job and moving to where the UPS job was. It was after the fact that he was told that that the job was no longer valid. This was an acknowledgment that UPS was going to hire Hernandez based on the written offer which he accepted as well as the verbal assurance from the UPS supervisors. Conclusion: Based on this analysis, there is an injustice because of the reliance that was made between Hernadez and UPS. There was an agreement from both sides that the job was offered and accepted which resulted in the move of Hernandez to El Paso. The elements of promissory estoppel are a promise that the promisor should foresee is likely to induce reliance, reliance on the promise by the promisee, and injustice as a result of that reliance.(Mallor, Barnes,Bowers, & Langvardt, 2010) The Reassurance of the UPS representatives created a reliance on the job which resulted in his leaving his job, terminating his lease on his apartment, and incurring moving expenses. As to why the company waited to let him know of the job situation is an injustice in itself but it was not fair and it was utterly rude not to reimburse him for his moving expenses because he moved under false pretenses of having the job.

Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law: The ethical, global, and ecommerce environment (14th ed.). New York: Irwin/McGraw Hill

Respond
219638333 219426548

RE: Week 2 Discussion 1

Email Earl Heltsley

9/30/2011 3:20:40 PM

I think you did a good job for discussion the simple case is Hernandez was offered a promise and got it in writing. The company sent him to orientation and he worked one day from home. I think in my mind it is clear he worked for them at least on the one day at home. Why he was dismissed and the terms of that written offer are something that is concerning and when making offers terms should be included by employers or some reasonable standard for withdrawal. Hernandez acted on US Supplies promise of the job and incurred a lot of expenses so he is entitled to his expenses and I think he should have gotten something extra for leaving Nestle since he would have waited if he had not acted on there promise and it is obvious he could have stayed with them until he had a good offer.

Respond
219429857 0

Week 2 discussion

Email Jake Nguyen

9/30/2011 12:52:57 AM

The doctrine of the promissory estoppel was created to protect the promisees who rely on the promisors oral made promise that would ordinarily have to be in writing, from revoking their offers. Many courts later on extended similar protection to relying promise. Hence, the new element of the promissory estoppels became according to Mallor (2010), a promise that the promisor should foresee is likely to induce reliance, reliance on the promise by the promisee, and injustice as a result of that reliance (pg. 303). In addition, the general common law rule on revocations states that offerors may revoke their offers at any time prior to acceptance. Thus, based on the stated definition of the promissory estoppels and the general common law rule on revocations, Mr. Hernandez will win his case in court. UPS made a promise to Mr. Hernandez that the job was his. The UPS representatives have sent out a written offer to Mr. Hernandez and he accepted the UPS offer for a management trainee position. Therefore, UPS should pay for his out-of-pocket expenses in addition to the unpaid hours he worked from September 5 through September 7, 2006.

Mallor, J., Barnes, A., Bowers, T., Langvardt, A. (2010). Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and ECommerce Environment, 14th Edition. McGraw-Hill, Boston