Yes. A court can, and in this case should, order Kasch to pay Skebba the $250,000 he promised. The lower court was wrong to think it could only pay Skebba back for his losses, like the salary from the job he didn't take. The whole point of the law of 'promissory estoppel' is to be fair. Skebba did his part of the deal—he stayed. Kasch got what he wanted—a loyal employee during hard times. The only fair result is to make Kasch keep his promise. The loss Skebba suffered was not getting the $250,000, so that's what he should get.

Yes, Kasch should have to pay Skebba the $250,000 he promised. The first judge made a mistake when they said they couldn't make Kasch pay. Making Kasch pay the exact amount he promised is the only fair way to make things right for Skebba. Skebba stayed at his job for six years because of this promise, which was a big deal. The jury found that Kasch did make the promise, and it's clear that Skebba turned down another job and stayed with Kasch even when the company was having money troubles. Kasch got what he wanted - Skebba stayed at the company. It doesn't matter what Skebba might have earned at the other job because that wasn't part of Kasch's promise. The most important thing is to make the situation fair, and in this case, that means making Kasch keep his promise and pay the $250,000.

Yes. A court may order specific performance of a promise in a promissory estoppel claim when it is the only way to prevent injustice. The trial court misinterpreted Hoffman v. Red Owl Food Stores by concluding that damages in promissory estoppel cases are always limited to reliance losses. The purpose of promissory estoppel is to prevent injustice, and a court may use any of its equitable or legal powers to achieve that goal. Here, Skebba's loss was not the difference in salary from the job he declined; his loss was the $250,000 he was promised in exchange for staying. Kasch received the full benefit of his bargain—Skebba's continued employment through difficult times—so justice requires that Kasch fulfill his end of the bargain. Applying the factors from U.S. Oil, every factor supports enforcing the promise, as there is no other adequate remedy to compensate Skebba for the specific promise he relied upon.

Yes, specific performance of Kasch's promise to pay Skebba $250,000 is an appropriate remedy under promissory estoppel to prevent injustice. The trial court misinterpreted Hoffman v. Red Owl Food Stores when it determined that it could not specifically enforce the promise found by the jury. Specific performance is the only remedy that will compensate Skebba for his loss because the amount Kasch promised to pay is the exact measure of what Skebba lost when Kasch refused to honor the promise. The purpose of promissory estoppel is to enforce promises where the failure to do so is unjust. The court must consider several factors in determining whether injustice can only be avoided by enforcement of the promise, as outlined in U.S. Oil Co., Inc. v. Midwest Auto Care Servs. Applying these factors to the present case, specific performance of the promise is necessary to prevent injustice. Skebba's forbearance of other employment for six years was both definite and substantial. The jury found that Kasch made the promise, and it is undisputed that Skebba turned down other employment and remained with Kasch through financially difficult times. Kasch's promise achieved his objectives, as Skebba stayed even though the company was in severe financial difficulties. The trial court erred in its application of Hoffman to the facts of this case. Skebba's loss has nothing to do with what he might have earned on another job, as that was never part of the promise made and relied upon. Specific performance is neither precluded nor disfavored as a remedy for promissory estoppel; preventing injustice is the objective. In this case, specific performance is the necessary enforcement mechanism to prevent injustice for Skebba's reliance on the promise the jury found Kasch had made to him.

Skebba v. Kasch

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot