Contract Law: Promissory Estoppel (Drennan v. Star Paving Co.) [LEAP Preview]

Want the rest of this video? Unlock the full lesson — plus 200+ videos, outlines, study aids, and more — for just $29/month: https://www.studicata.com 00:00 Promissory Estoppel vs. Formation Doctrine The video explains how detrimental reliance appears both in traditional contract formation and as an alternative theory of recovery. 01:15 The Drennan Case and Irrevocable Offers A classic general contractor–subcontractor scenario illustrates how detrimental reliance can make an offer irrevocable under mutual assent. 05:36 Why This Is Still a Formation Issue The court's reasoning in Drennan belongs under mutual assent analysis—not promissory estoppel—because the contract may still be enforceable. 06:30 When Promissory Estoppel Actually Applies Promissory estoppel becomes a true alternative theory only when a promise lacks consideration, like a gift promise. 07:49 The Three Elements of Promissory Estoppel Section 90 of the Second Restatement lays out the three core elements: foreseeability, detrimental reliance, and injustice. 09:40 Hypothetical: The Free Marker and the $1,000 Whiteboard An example shows how foreseeability limits the scope of promissory estoppel, especially when promises are minor and reliance is extreme. Thinking about using Studicata? You’re in good company. ✅ Trusted by 100,000+ law students and bar takers ✅ Featured and recommended by top law schools ✅ Named the 81st fastest-growing education company in the U.S. by Inc. See why so many future lawyers choose us to study smarter—not harder: 👉 https://www.studicata.com