Q1 Answer
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a law provision in which one party compensates another in case it fails to honor a promise that was legally binding. The compensation is subject to the legally of the contract and the degree under which the party promised relied on the promise (Calamari, 2011). This is to mean that the doctrine can take the course even if there was no signed contract. In most cases this doctrine applies if a party makes a false statement to another and the party promised relies on that case. The guiding principle, in this case, is the promise meant but not the presence of the elements required for a valid contract. An outstanding example of such as case is McIntosh v. Murphy.
Q2 Answer
The doctrine of promissory estoppel exists so as to protect parties from being taken advantage of by others by the use of false statements or promises. It is important in ensuring that parties honor their promises irrespective of the legality of the contract. In fact, its existence plays a vital role from preventing parties from being deprived their rights to receive their promises due to a claim of the nonexistence of a valid contract (Calamari, 2011).
Q3 Answer
McIntosh v. Murphy is a good example of a case where the doctrine is well applicable. In this case, Murphy promised McIntosh that he was to hire him to work at his auto dealership for one year. The promise was made verbally and not in writing. McIntosh was given the opportunity to work in the dealership, but he fired him after the end of the two months which was against the promise. McIntosh sued Murphy claiming that he failed to honor the promise. The court investigated the case and found that McIntosh relied on the oral promise and thus held that Murphy breached the promise and ought to honor the promise. This decision by the court was good because it considered the doctrine (Calamari, 2011).
References
Calamari, J. D. (2011). Cases and problems on contracts. St. Paul, MN: West.
