On March 10, Martin entered into an oral contract with Wilson. Under the oral contract, they agreed that Wilson will work for Martin for two years for a salary of $50,000 per year. Wilson quit his job the next day so that he could join Martin. But on March 12, Martin called Wilson and repudiated the contract, stating that he had decided not to hire him after all. If Wilson decides to sue, which of the following is most likely to be true?
A) Wilson may use the doctrine of promissory estoppel to show that he had materially relied on the oral promise and will suffer serious losses if the promise is not enforced.
B) Wilson cannot sue Martin because there was no written contract.
C) Oral contracts are completely voidable and have no weight in the court.
D) Wilson can sue Martin for false imprisonment and unintentional tort because Wilson did not have a written contract, and this becomes the best alternate course of action.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

If Wilson decides to sue, he may use the doctrine of promissory estoppel to show that he had materially relied on the oral promise and will suffer serious losses if the promise is not enforced. In recent years, some courts have begun to try to prevent such injustices by using the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel to allow some parties to recover under oral contracts that the statute of frauds would ordinarily render unenforceable. If the plaintiff has materially relied on the oral promise and will suffer serious losses if the promise is not enforced, courts in these states hold that the other party is estopped from raising the statute of frauds as a defense.

On March 10, Martin Entered into an Oral Contract with Wilson