Goodman v. Dicker
169 F.2d 684.
Facts: The defendants told the plaintiffs that they would be
able to have a franchise selling radios.
In reliance on this promise, the plaintiffs hired salesmen and tried to
sell radios. However, the defendants
changed their minds. The plaintiffs
sued.
Issue: Can the plaintiffs recover on promissory estoppel
even though the franchise agreement, if performed, would have been “at will”?
Rule: “[O]ne who acts to his detriment on the faith of
conduct of the kind revealed here should be protected by estopping the party
who has brought about the situation from alleging anything in opposition to the
natural consequences of his own course of conduct.”
Analysis: The court finds that the trial court was correct in
awarding the plaintiffs damages based on how much they spent in reliance on having
the franchise and being able to sell radios.
The defendants, however, are found to be not liable for lost profits on
an initial order of radios.
Conclusion: The judgment was affirmed.