Promissory estoppel as an alternative ground for recovery

One of the fundamental notions of law of contract at common law is certainly the institution of consideration. In order to have a legally binding and enforceable promise, it must be supported by consideration. If the promise lacks consideration, it will be held unenforceable, unless another ground of enforceability is present. The other two possible grounds for recovery are the requirements of form and the institution of promissory estoppel. This paper deals with the latter one. The author first analyses the notion of promissory estoppel, its historical background in the American and English law and differences between promissory and equitable estoppels. Secondly attention is paid to the regulation of promissory estoppel in the §90 of the First and Second Restatement of Contracts, relevant case-law and doctrine. Finally, the author makes an attempt to determine the legal nature of liability based upon promissory estoppel (whether it is an institution of contract law or tort law), on one hand, and the degree of liability measured by the standards of restitution, reliance or expectation interest, on the other.