SPEAKER: Now there are a few conditions and I'm
sure they will strike you as fair before such promises, which are not bargains,
are enforced in court.
For instance, remember Leonard against Pepsico.
The reliance on the promise has got to be reasonable.
The promise has to be serious, not a joke.
So Leonard's reliance on the Pepsi ad, which
after all was quite significant reliance--
a $700,000 investment, as it turned out, was substantial
but it wasn't reasonable.
No reasonable person should have gone to the trouble and expense in respect
to such a promise as Pepsico had made.
Second, the detriment has to be foreseeable
by the person who elicits it, who causes it,
which is really not so far from the requirement
that the detrimental reliance be reasonable.
In other words, the person who makes the promise, if he's a reasonable person,
has to foresee that by making this promise,
it's going to cause this detrimental reliance.
That's easiest to see in the case of Sister Antillico, which
today would come out very differently.
The brother-in-law could foresee that his sister would
suffer the expense and the trouble that she did when he made the promise.
And Grandpa certainly could foresee that his granddaughter might
quit her job as a result of his promise.
So to summarize this last bit, there are two additional requirements in addition
to the promise.
The reliance on the promise has to be reasonable,
and it has to be foreseeable.