Estoppel Without Reliance
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Contracts1
Example wrong choices
20808_jericho_press · CONTRACTS · Choice ALydia, because Timothy promised to share the estate with her if she promised to let him use the press until Mary’s death.
Why it's attractive
It sees the visible promise-for-promise exchange and stops there. The breaker is the Gold Key: Lydia gave only permission she already owed, so the exchange adds no legal detriment.
Why it's wrong
The choice identifies a visible promise exchange but skips whether Lydia gave new legal detriment.
Spot it next time
Apply the Gold Key: already owed is not new consideration.
20808_jericho_press · CONTRACTS · Choice CLydia, because Timothy is estopped from denying the existence of an enforceable contract between him and Lydia.
Why it's attractive
It reaches for promissory estoppel as a fairness rescue. The breaker is the missing reliance move: Lydia did not change legal position because of Timothy’s promise.
Why it's wrong
The choice reaches for promissory estoppel but lacks a Lydia reliance fact.
Spot it next time
Require an induced action or forbearance before using promissory estoppel.
20808_jericho_press · CONTRACTS · Choice DTimothy, because Lydia’s promise to Hannah created an implied condition precedent to Timothy’s obligation to share the estate with Lydia.
Why it's attractive
It uses the hidden first-transfer condition to support the same winning party. The breaker is frame control: Timothy's later promise was not made subject to a condition he never knew.
Why it's wrong
The choice imports a hidden earlier condition into Timothy's later promise.
Spot it next time
Cut answers that import someone else's hidden deal into the current call.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →