Summary
Roe and Casey might have a legal claim based on promissory estoppel due to their reliance on Pepsis promise, which led them to quit their jobs and move to Auckland. Pepsis promise could be considered a contract if it meets the legal requirements of offer, acceptance, and consideration. Consulting with a local attorney could provide more personalized advice.Full Conversation
hep determine this case
Hi ****! Could you please provide more details about your legal issue so I can assist you better?
Advise Roe and Casey if they can enforce Pepsi’s promises or not?
Hi ****! To help determine if Roe and Casey can enforce Pepsi's promises, I need to know more details about the promises Pepsi made. Can you provide some specific information about the promises and any agreements or contracts involved?
Roe and Casey were both born in Auckland, New Zealand but in their 20s they immigrated to Australia. Now in their 40s, they have lived in Australia for about 20 years where Roe worked as a fisherman, Casey worked as a doctor’s receptionist and raised their two sons.
Casey’s only living relative was her wealthy *-year-old mother, Pepsi who still lives in an apartment in Auckland, New Zealand. not finished yt
Case Rating: *
To determine if Roe and Casey can enforce Pepsi's promises, it would be helpful to know the specific nature of these promises. Were they verbal or written? Are there any witnesses or evidence supporting these promises? Please provide more details.
Pepsi greatly missed her grandchildren and wrote to Casey and Roe asking them to leave Australia come and live in Auckland New Zealand so she could be close to them and her grandchildren. She said they could live with her for 6 months and then she would purchase them a house in Auckland and pay for all their living expenses until Roe and Casey found new jobs in Auckland.
So based on Pepsi’s offer, the family decides to see how things go for 6 months rented their house in Australia to tenants for 6 months, quit their jobs and moved to Auckland.
Case Rating: *
Based on the information provided, here is some general legal guidance:
- Contract Law: Pepsi’s promise could be seen as a contract if it meets the legal requirements of offer, acceptance, and consideration.
- Estoppel: If Roe and Casey relied on Pepsi's promise to their detriment (e.g., quitting jobs and moving), they might be able to claim promissory estoppel.
Would you like more detailed legal guidance or to discuss this with local legal professionals?
The whole family lived in Pepsi’s large apartment for about 3 months while they tried to find a suitable place of their own.
Unfortunately, Pepsi had arguments with the family every day and then at the end of those 3 months pushed the whole family out of her apartment and told them she would not buy them a house. The family moved out of Pepsi’s apartment, rented a house in Hunter, a suburb of Auckland. Roe found a job in a seafood shop and Casey found work as a waitress in a café.
Case Rating: *
****, based on the details provided, Roe and Casey might have a case based on promissory estoppel due to their reliance on Pepsi's promise, which led them to make significant life changes.
General Legal Points:
- Contract Law: Pepsi’s offer and Roe and Casey's acceptance could form a contract.
- Promissory Estoppel: Roe and Casey relied on Pepsi’s promise to their detriment.
Would you like more detailed legal guidance or to discuss this with local legal professionals?
TRY ME!
Start a new chat