Full question:
My firm agreed to pay me a commission structure and when it came time to pay me, changed my status to what they call 'home office bonus eligible' so they could argue that I'm to be paid like all my bosses, zero. As a series 7 registered employee, I am required to use an arbitration panel to file any dispute. Has the legal defense of 'reliance' had success in defending a contract dispute?
- Category: Contracts
- Subcategory: Breach of Contract
- Date:
- State: New York
Answer:
Detrimental reliance can sometimes be successfully used in contract disputes. Whether it works depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, as determined by the court.
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two parties that creates obligations. Contracts can be oral or written, but oral contracts are harder to prove and typically have shorter time limits for enforcement. Contracts are governed by state law, which includes statutory and common law.
A breach of contract occurs when one party fails to perform their obligations, causing the other party to suffer damages. Legal actions for breach are civil and aim to compensate the injured party, not to punish the breaching party. Remedies include money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance.
Promissory estoppel is relevant here, as it applies when one party relies on a promise from another party, leading to a detriment. To establish detrimental reliance, one must show that the reliance was reasonable, foreseeable, and resulted in harm, and that enforcing the promise is necessary to prevent injustice.
In summary, reliance can be a valid defense in contract disputes, but its success depends on the specific details of the case.
This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal statutes mentioned reflect the law at the time the content was written and may no longer be current. Always verify the latest version of the law before relying on it.