Now I told you that this case is an example of the courts going
about as far as they can or should go.
The courts certainly couldn't put the Hoffmans into a Red Owl store,
because where would the store be?
What would it look like?
How big would it be?
They couldn't just make that up.
Nevertheless, the court did feel that this
had been a case of careless negotiating.
There hadn't been quite a promise here.
There had been at most a promise to make a promise,
a promise to bargain in good faith, a promise
to have things turn out all right in the end--
although we don't quite know what all right means.
Still, the court looked at the situation.
And they must have thought, here of these people--
decent, honest, hardworking, ambitious people.
And they have been led into a mess by the Red Owl people.
The negotiations themselves had caused the Hoffmans detrimental reliance.
If only you do this, if only you do that, if only
you sell your store, if only you buy a grocery store to get experience,
if only you sell the bakery building, maybe you'll have enough money.
And then we can make a deal.
But there had never really been any specification
of what the deal would be.
The Hoffmans had done all these things, and in the event,
they were left high and dry.
And it's that which moved the court.
So what the court did, it didn't put them into a Red Owl store.
The court said, well, let's add up all the losses which the Red Owl's
negotiation had caused the Hoffmans.
How much money did they lose on the bakery which they sold?
How much did it cost them to move to another town?
Add up that kind of thing, and it added up to quite a bit of money for them.
But that's all they got.
They got their detrimental reliance-- the money they had already put in,
but not the Red Owl store, not the benefit they had hoped to get.
And in a way, that's about all the court could give them,
because negotiations hadn't reached a point where
there'd been a firm, clear promise on the part of Red Owl
to do this, that, or the other thing.
So there we have a situation where it's a little guy
against a big guy or big guys.
And maybe the law is just being a bit kindly, a bit soft.
But what if you have two big corporations?
Maybe they ought to be able to take care of themselves.