In Hinson v. N&W Construction, where Hinson submitted the low bid to N&W for plumbing work to be part of a larger construction project by N&W, but then refused to do the work when construction was started by N&W, the court held that Hinson:
A) could not be relied upon by N&W because he was not licensed for such work
B) was not liable because there was no consideration paid by N&W to create a contract
C) was liable for damages based on a theory of promissory estoppel, not breach of contract
D) was not liable because there was not a contract due to lack of proper acceptance by N&W
E) none of the other choices

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court held that Hinson was liable for damages based on a theory of promissory estoppel, not breach of contract. This means that even though there was no formal contract between Hinson and N&W, Hinson made a promise to perform the plumbing work and N&W relied on that promise to its detriment. As a result, the court found that Hinson was estopped from denying the existence of a contract and was liable for damages. The other options are incorrect because licensing and consideration are not necessary for a contract to exist, and there was a proper acceptance by N&W of Hinson's bid.

In Hinson V