Which scenario describes detrimental reliance sufficient to enforce an oral land sale contract?

• A. The party reasonably relied on the contract and would suffer hardship if the contract is not enforced
• B. The contract is oral and cannot be enforced
• C. The failure to perform caused no reliance by the other party
• D. The contract contains no consideration

Answer: (A)

Promissory estoppel can enforce an oral land sale when a party reasonably relies to their detriment on a promise, making enforcement necessary to prevent injustice. In this scenario, the party’s reliance is both reasonable and detrimental, and enforcing the contract would prevent hardship that would occur if the promise were not kept. That combination—reliance plus resulting hardship—fits the doctrine and explains why the oral agreement can be enforced despite the Statute of Frauds.

If there is no reliance, there is no basis for estoppel and the promise won’t be enforced. Simply noting that an agreement is oral and unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds ignores the exception for detrimental reliance. Also, while some contracts require consideration, promissory estoppel does not require consideration to justify enforcement, so a lack of consideration in itself doesn’t defeat the remedy.