Detrimental reliance, or as it is also known, promissory estoppel, is something law professors like, but is rarely seen in the real world. In general, to win on PE (which is a real feat), you have to show that the promisor could have reasonably foreseen an actual detriment occasioned by your reliance (i.e., you have to show something more than “Promisor should have known I might have done things differently if he didn’t make this promise.”)
We have important reasons for requiring consideration to pass between the parties before making promises enforceable. It costs money to run a court system, so we want our courts to focus on regulating commercial transactions, so that we can have a flourishing economy, rather than regulating gratuitous generosity. The exchange of consideration also alerts the parties that something serious is going on, so we don’t end up enforcing mere capricious unilateral decisions but instead considered negotiated agreements. All this is to say that, while it might on first glance seem unfair to the disappointed promisee that he can’t prevail in court, a world without the consideration requirement is even more unlovely and that we should expand theories like PE only with great trepidation.
Here you see something that appears much more like a foreseeable and concrete detriment. It is very similar to what happened in Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, a notable case from a period where PE looked like it may be ascendant (rumors of consideration’s death, it turns out, were greatly exaggerated).
Indeed, if I were your lawyer in the above scenario, I wouldn’t even proceed on a PE theory. I’d plead it as a plain old breach of contract case and simply say that the consideration was a promise-and-performance exchange: In exchange for your taking on the burden of selling your car as Defendant requested, Defendant promised to give you his car. The weak point in this is that your selling your car doesn’t seem to benefit the Defendant. Nevertheless, the common law provides that consideration can take the form of rendering a benefit to the counterparty or assuming some burden at the counterparty’s request. I guess you could plead PE in the alternative.
Yeah, I don’t get it. Not only is the giftor NOT getting a benefit, they are getting a loss - loss of use of their own vehicle for an indeterminate time. Unless you can demonstrate some benefit (it’s your boss, and you will keep showing up to work if you have a car; or it’s the guy you deliver groceries to if/when you have a vehicle; etc.) it would seem to be a very obvious form of gift. You better be one sharp lawyer to argue the case otherhow.
I think you have the identities of who is doing what confused.
We have two people, Promisor and Ann. Each of them has a car of her own. Let’s say Ann has a Hyundai and Promisor has a Jaguar.
On Monday, Promisor says to Ann: “Ann, sell your Hyundai. If you do, I will give you my Jaguar next week.”
Ann says “Rad. I’ll do that right away.” And the very next thing she does is to sell her Hyundai.
Next Monday, one week later, Ann goes to Promisor and says, “I’ll take that Jaguar of yours now.” And Promisor responds, “On second thought, I’m going to keep the Jag. Tough break, Toots.”
This is breach, not a promised gift that failed to materialize.