Script for Business Law Project:
Although UOME seems to have a good claim against MUS, what about MUS' stand?
Isn't it unfair that UOME Bank, which agreed to discharge the entire loan and waive all outstanding interest payments if MUS repays $800,000 of the principal sum on the due date and $200,000 two weeks later, wins this case?
If we recall correctly, there are the 4 exceptions to the general rule of Part Payment.
Can anyone tell me which is it?
(stop the class once it finish the definition of promissory estoppel)
Yes that is correct. For MUS to have a good claim, it can use Promissory Estoppel. This essentially estoppes UOME from going back on its initial promise.
Estoppel - a bar or impediment preventing a party from asserting a fact or a claim inconsistent with a position that party previously took, either by conduct or words, especially where a representation has been relied or added upon others.
Slide 19: To successfully invoke the doctrine, all of the following elements must be present.
We will be examining if these 4 elements, as well as the effects of promissory estoppel, were present.
Element 1) Was there a clear and unequivocal promise by UOME bank not to insist upon his original contractual rights?
This element essentially forms to foundation because the clearer the promise, the more likely that MUS acted in reliance on it and render it inequitable for UOME bank to retract its promise.
Class, do you think that this promise is sufficiently clear and certain to be judged objectively?
Thank you for all of your participation. My group feels that when UOME bank made this following statement, the bank actually made a well-defined and explicit promise, which is intended to affect...