Rules, rules, and more rules

As you prepare to turn in the assignment due tomorrow morning, you may have parsed the promissory estoppel rules from Filippi into a 'deductive' form. I often break rules down this way:

1. Is there any prerequisite for the rule's application? Some rules apply only in certain contexts. For example, promissory estoppel does not apply when there is actually a contract between the parties - right?
2. If/Then statement: E.g., If A and B, then C. Note that each part of the If statement may have sub-parts. If the promise is "clear and unambiguous" - is that one condition, or two?
3. Exceptions: E.g., If A and B, then C, except where D. Exceptions can sometimes, but not always, be stated as part of the if/then statement. E.g., If A and B and not D, then C. If you decide to paraphrase the rule that way, think through what Clary/Lysaght says about care in placing 'not's.
4. Special conditions: E.g., the Filippi court's statement that where an agreement to make a will rests on parol evidence, "it must be established by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence." Barbara Johnson's case does not involve a promise to make a will.

Part of the IF statement for PE in Filippi includes a requirement that the promisee rely reasonably on the promise (you may have characterized it in different terms - that's fine). But to apply the Filippi rule to Barbara Johnson's case, you will need to decide what reasonable reliance looks like. In other words, you need to know what the "rule" is for reasonable reliance. The only help you have is the court's application of its rule to Paula Consagra - the court found that was NOT reasonable reliance. When advising Ms. Johnson, you will need to compare and contrast the facts in her case with those in the Filippi opinion to determine whether her reliance is reasonable.

By the way, Ballard's appears to be prospering on the Rhode Island coast. Looks like a nice place!
-Brian