Promissory estoppel a farm and a $90,000 award for defamatory Google and Yelp reviews

Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:
Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that can protect a claimant’s reasonable reliance on another person’s word. It is intended to avoid unfairness by enforcing promises.
In a case discussed on the show, a judge needed to determine if either promissory estoppel or another equitable doctrine called unjust enrichment should result in a farm being given to a man who had worked on it for many years with the expectation that he would receive it when the owner passed away.
Starting in the 1970s, the farm owner made various remarks that caused the man who worked on the farm without formal pay to believe he would inherit it when the owner passed away. The remarks included things such as anyone who worked on the farm would get a piece one day and that he hoped the man who worked on the farm would be ready to fight for it one day.
Ultimately, the owner of the farm, who never married and had no children, decided to leave it to a neighbour with whom he had a long-term friendship.
To succeed with a claim of promissory estoppel, there are three starting requirements:
1. a representation or assurance is made to the claimant, on the basis of which the claimant expects to enjoy some right or benefit over property;
2. the claimant relies on that expectation by doing something or not doing something, and that reliance is reasonable in all the circumstances; and
3. the claimant suffers a detriment from this reliance, such that it would be unfair or unjust for the party responsible for the representation or assurance to go back on their word.
While the representation or assurance can be express or implied, the judge hearing the case concluded that the remarks made by the farm owner over the years were too ambiguous to make out the claim.
The judge also dismissed the claim based on unjust enrichment. This kind of claim also has three initial requirements:
1. the respondent was enriched;
2. the claimant suffered a corresponding deprivation; and
3. the respondent’s enrichment and the claimant’s corresponding deprivation occurred in the absence of a juristic reason.
The judge concluded that the man who worked on the farm did so based on an informal arrangement whereby the man would provide labour, and the farm owner would reciprocate with occasional gifts or payments without any expectation that the value of the work or gifts would be commensurate.
Also, on the show, a successful claim for defamation based on Google and Yelp reviews is discussed.
The case involved a customer who had a dispute with a small cedar products company concerning the purchase of some building material.
The unhappy customer posted negative reviews on Google and Yelp, making false allegations that the company had defrauded and scammed him when this was not true.
The judge concluded that all the elements of defamation had been proven and awarded that cedar products company $90,000 in damages.
Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.