Ben and Matt Arguments

Question: Discuss the arguments that Ben and Matt will each make if the claim is brought. Provide full analysis. Answer: In the present case, Ben had relied on a statement made by Matt when he said that he was looking forward to work with you. Relying on the statement, Ben moved to San Francisco and also rented an apartment in San Francisco. However when Ben contacted Matt, he told that the job has not yet been assigned to him. Under these circumstances, while it can be claimed by Ben that they have a legally enforceable contract and at the same time, Matt is also bound by the principle of promissory estoppel, on the other hand, Matt can claim that he has made no contract with Ben and similarly, he has not given any assurance to Ben regarding the job. In case of contract law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel provides that there should be fair dealings in business relationships (Hamer v. Sidway, 1891). In the same way, this doctrine discourages the conduct that may unreasonably cause foreseeable economic loss to the other party as a result of the action or the inaction that has been used by a specific promise. In case of this action, there should be justifiable reliance by one party on the representations made by the other party (Barnett, 2003). Therefore in the present case, it can be claimed by Ben that he had relied on the representations made by Matt and under the circumstances, it was reasonable for him to rely on such representation. On the other hand, it can be asserted by Matt that he had not made any representation to Ben regarding the job and therefore, it was unreasonable for Ben to move to San Francisco and rent an apartment there only on the basis of a casual statement. References Randy E. Barnett, 2003, Contracts: Cases and Doctrines, 60813 (3rd ed.) Case Law Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891)