In New Hampshire contract law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked when a promise is made that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person, and which does induce such action or forbearance, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. This doctrine serves as a substitute for consideration when a contract is not formally supported by a bargained-for exchange. The elements typically considered are: a clear and unambiguous promise; reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the promisee on the promise; actual reliance by the promisee; and injustice if the promise is not enforced. The remedy under promissory estoppel is generally limited to what is necessary to prevent injustice, which may be expectation damages or reliance damages, depending on the circumstances. New Hampshire courts, like many others, apply this doctrine to prevent unfairness where a lack of formal consideration would otherwise leave a party without recourse. The case of *Girard v. Dartmouth College* is often cited for its discussion of promissory estoppel in New Hampshire, emphasizing the need for a clear promise and substantial reliance. The focus is on preventing the detriment suffered by the promisee due to their reasonable reliance on the promisor’s assurance.

In New Hampshire, the concept of consideration is a fundamental element for the formation of a valid contract. Consideration refers to the bargained-for exchange of something of legal value between the parties. This can take the form of a promise, an act, or a forbearance. For a contract to be enforceable, each party must provide consideration. New Hampshire follows the general common law principles regarding consideration, emphasizing that it must be legally sufficient, meaning it has some value in the eyes of the law. Past consideration, which is something done before a promise is made, is generally not considered valid consideration because it was not bargained for at the time of the promise. Similarly, a pre-existing duty, where a party promises to do something they are already legally obligated to do, also fails to constitute valid consideration. The scenario presented involves a promise made in exchange for an action that was completed prior to the promise. Specifically, Ms. Gable’s promise to pay Mr. Finch $500 was made after Mr. Finch had already repaired her antique clock. Since Mr. Finch’s repair of the clock was completed before Ms. Gable’s promise to pay, it constitutes past consideration. Under New Hampshire contract law, past consideration is generally insufficient to support a new promise. Therefore, Ms. Gable’s promise is not legally enforceable as a contract because there was no bargained-for exchange of value at the time the promise was made. The enforceability of such a promise would typically require a new promise or a ratification of the prior act after the promise was made, which is not present in this situation.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration when a promise is made which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, and which does induce such action or forbearance, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. This principle is codified and interpreted through case law. For a claim of promissory estoppel to succeed in New Hampshire, the plaintiff must demonstrate a clear and unambiguous promise, reasonable and foreseeable reliance on that promise by the promisee, and detriment suffered by the promisee as a result of their reliance, where injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. The focus is on the fairness and equity of enforcing the promise given the detrimental reliance. It is not about the existence of a formal bargain but about preventing unconscionable outcomes. The reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable by the promisor. The detriment suffered must be substantial and not merely trivial. The court will then weigh these factors to determine if enforcing the promise is necessary to prevent injustice.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration in certain circumstances. This doctrine, as recognized in New Hampshire case law, allows a promise to be enforced even without formal consideration if the promisor made a clear and definite promise, the promisor should have reasonably expected the promisee to rely on the promise, the promisee did in fact rely on the promise to their detriment, and injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. The key is to demonstrate reliance and resulting detriment, making it inequitable to allow the promisor to renege. This is distinct from a contract requiring bargained-for exchange. The question focuses on a situation where a contractor made a bid, and the subcontractor’s reliance on that bid led to a detriment when the general contractor withdrew. The subcontractor’s actions in preparing to perform based on the bid, such as purchasing specialized materials or allocating labor, constitute reliance. The detriment arises from the costs incurred or opportunities lost due to this reliance. New Hampshire law, like many jurisdictions, examines the reasonableness of the reliance and the foreseeability of the detriment. The fact that the subcontractor had not yet begun actual performance does not negate the existence of reliance or detriment if preparatory actions were taken in good faith.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration when a promise is made and reasonably relied upon by the promisee to their detriment. For promissory estoppel to apply, there must be a clear and unambiguous promise, a reasonable and foreseeable reliance on that promise by the party to whom it was made, and the reliance must have resulted in some form of detriment or injury. The promisor must have intended to induce reliance. In the scenario presented, Silas made a clear promise to Beatrice to convey a specific parcel of land in Concord, New Hampshire. Beatrice, in reliance on this promise, incurred significant expenses by selling her existing property in Manchester and purchasing building materials for the planned construction on Silas’s land. This reliance was reasonable given Silas’s explicit promise and Beatrice’s actions in preparing for the transfer. The detriment Beatrice suffered is the loss incurred from selling her home and the wasted expenditure on materials, which she would not have undertaken absent Silas’s promise. Silas’s promise was made with the apparent intention of inducing Beatrice to act, as evidenced by her subsequent actions. Therefore, under New Hampshire law, Beatrice would likely have a claim against Silas based on promissory estoppel, as her reliance on his promise was reasonable and resulted in a demonstrable detriment.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration in certain circumstances, particularly when a promise has been made and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the promisee. For a claim of promissory estoppel to succeed under New Hampshire law, three elements must generally be established: (1) a clear and definite promise, (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made, and (3) injury sustained by the party asserting reliance. This doctrine prevents injustice by enforcing promises that might otherwise be unenforceable due to a lack of formal consideration. The focus is on the fairness and equity of enforcing the promise given the reliance. New Hampshire courts, in cases like Sheehan v. Sheehan, have recognized the application of promissory estoppel to prevent unconscionable results. The remedy for a successful promissory estoppel claim is typically limited to what is necessary to prevent injustice, often encompassing reliance damages rather than expectation damages.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration in certain situations. This doctrine is invoked when one party makes a clear and unambiguous promise, the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee, the promisee does indeed take action or forbear in reliance on the promise, and injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. The case of Lakeshore Properties LLC and Finnigan Development Corp. involves a promise made by Lakeshore to Finnigan regarding future subcontracting work on a significant construction project in Nashua, New Hampshire. Lakeshore’s assurance that Finnigan would be awarded the electrical subcontract, contingent on Finnigan securing a specific type of specialized equipment, led Finnigan to procure this equipment at considerable expense and rearrange its existing project schedules. Lakeshore’s subsequent withdrawal of the offer, after Finnigan had fulfilled the condition, would cause significant financial detriment to Finnigan. Given that Lakeshore’s promise was specific, Finnigan’s reliance was reasonable and foreseeable, and Finnigan acted upon that promise to its detriment, the elements for promissory estoppel are present. Enforcing the promise is necessary to prevent injustice, as Finnigan incurred costs and altered its operational plans in direct response to Lakeshore’s assurance. Therefore, Finnigan may be able to recover damages under the theory of promissory estoppel, even if a formal, fully executed contract was not in place, because the promise induced substantial detrimental reliance.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce a promise even in the absence of formal consideration, provided certain elements are met. These elements, as understood in New Hampshire contract law and generally in common law jurisdictions, include: 1) a clear and unambiguous promise; 2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the promisee on that promise; 3) actual reliance by the promisee, incurring some detriment or change in position; and 4) injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. The purpose of promissory estoppel is to prevent unconscionable injury to the promisee due to reliance on a promise. It acts as a substitute for consideration when its absence would lead to an inequitable outcome. This doctrine is particularly relevant in situations where a gratuitous promise is made and the promisee acts upon it to their detriment, such as foregoing other opportunities or expending resources. The reliance must be both reasonable in the eyes of a prudent person and foreseeable by the promisor. The detriment suffered by the promisee need not be financial; it can encompass any significant change in their legal relations or position. The court’s decision to enforce the promise under promissory estoppel is equitable, aiming to prevent unfairness.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration when a promise is made, and the promisor should reasonably expect the promisee to rely on that promise, and the promisee does, in fact, rely on it to their detriment. The detriment must be substantial and foreseeable. The elements for promissory estoppel in New Hampshire are: 1) a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person; 2) which does induce such action or forbearance; and 3) which injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. This principle is rooted in equitable considerations to prevent unfairness when formal contractual elements are absent but reliance has occurred. The reliance must be justifiable and lead to a loss or disadvantage for the promisee.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce a promise even in the absence of formal consideration, provided certain elements are met. These elements, derived from common law principles and often codified or interpreted in state statutes and case law, include: a clear and unambiguous promise; a reasonable and foreseeable reliance on that promise by the party to whom it was made; actual reliance by that party; and injustice that can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. For instance, if a business owner in Manchester promises a supplier a significant contract for specialized components, and the supplier, reasonably relying on this promise, incurs substantial costs to retool their factory and purchase specific raw materials, the business owner may be estopped from revoking the promise if doing so would cause significant hardship to the supplier. The reliance must be both reasonable in the circumstances and actual, meaning the supplier must have indeed taken action based on the promise. The final element, preventing injustice, is a judicial determination based on the totality of the circumstances, weighing the promisor’s conduct against the detriment suffered by the promisee. New Hampshire courts, like others, look to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 as a guiding principle in these matters.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked when a promise is made that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person, and which does induce such action or forbearance, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. This doctrine serves as a substitute for consideration in certain situations. To establish promissory estoppel in New Hampshire, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) a clear and definite promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; and (3) injury sustained by the party asserting the estoppel as a result of the reliance. The reliance must be substantial and not merely nominal. The court will consider whether the promise was specific enough to warrant reliance and whether the detriment suffered by the promisee was a direct consequence of their reliance on the promise. The purpose is to prevent injustice where a lack of formal consideration would otherwise leave a party without a remedy for a broken promise that induced significant action.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce a promise even in the absence of formal consideration, provided certain elements are met. These elements, as established in case law and generally understood in contract law, require that a promise was made, that the promisor should have reasonably expected the promisee to rely on the promise, that the promisee did in fact rely on the promise to their detriment, and that injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. The detriment suffered by the promisee must be substantial and not merely a minor inconvenience. The reliance must be reasonable and foreseeable. New Hampshire law, like many jurisdictions, views promissory estoppel as a substitute for consideration in specific circumstances to prevent unfairness. The focus is on the equitable nature of the situation and the prevention of unconscionable outcomes arising from broken promises that have induced detrimental reliance. The analysis centers on the reasonableness of the reliance and the degree of harm caused by that reliance.

In New Hampshire contract law, the concept of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration when a promise is made which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, and which does induce such action or forbearance. The promisee must have acted in reliance on the promise to their detriment. The court may then enforce the promise to avoid injustice. This doctrine is rooted in equity and aims to prevent unfairness when a party has been harmed by relying on a promise, even if the formal requirements of a contract, such as bargained-for exchange, are not met. For promissory estoppel to apply, there must be a clear and unambiguous promise, reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the promisee, and substantial detriment incurred by the promisee due to that reliance, necessitating enforcement to prevent injustice. New Hampshire courts, like many others, recognize this equitable principle as a means of enforcing promises in the absence of traditional contractual consideration, particularly in situations involving gratuitous promises that induce significant reliance.

In New Hampshire, the enforceability of a contract with a minor hinges on the concept of disaffirmance. A contract entered into by a minor is generally voidable at the minor’s election. This means the minor has the power to either ratify the contract upon reaching the age of majority or disaffirm it during their minority or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not alter this fundamental principle regarding contracts with minors. When a minor disaffirms a contract, they are typically obligated to return any consideration received from the adult party that remains in their possession. However, New Hampshire law, like many jurisdictions, does not require the minor to restore the adult party to their original position if the consideration has been lost, spent, or damaged due to the minor’s actions or negligence, absent fraud or misrepresentation. This is a protective measure for minors. In this scenario, while Bartholomew, as a minor, can disaffirm the contract for the antique telescope, his obligation to return the telescope is subject to its current condition. Since Bartholomew has, through his own actions, damaged the telescope beyond repair, his disaffirmance obligates him to return what remains, which is essentially worthless. He is not liable for the diminished value or the cost of repair beyond what he can return. The adult party bears the risk of loss for depreciation or damage to the goods when the contract is disaffirmed by a minor, unless there is evidence of bad faith or intentional destruction beyond ordinary use or negligence. Therefore, Bartholomew’s disaffirmance is effective, and he is only required to return the damaged telescope.

In New Hampshire contract law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce a promise even in the absence of traditional consideration, provided certain conditions are met. The elements typically required are: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) actual reliance by that party; and (4) injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. The reliance must be substantial and not merely incidental. The promisor must have reasonably expected the promisee to act upon the promise. The focus is on preventing injustice to the promisee who has changed their position to their detriment based on the promisor’s assurance. The remedy under promissory estoppel is generally limited to what is necessary to prevent injustice, which might be expectation damages or reliance damages, depending on the circumstances and the court’s discretion. This equitable doctrine serves as a substitute for consideration when its absence would lead to an unfair outcome. It is crucial that the reliance was a direct and proximate cause of the promise.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce a promise even in the absence of formal consideration, provided certain elements are met. These elements, as generally applied and recognized in New Hampshire contract law, include a clear and unambiguous promise, reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the promisee on that promise, and detriment suffered by the promisee as a result of that reliance. The promise must be of a nature that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person. Furthermore, the promise must actually induce such action or forbearance. The detriment must be substantial and not merely nominal. The court’s objective in applying promissory estoppel is to prevent injustice. It is not about enforcing the promise as if it were a contract, but rather about providing a remedy to the party who reasonably relied to their detriment. The remedy granted is typically what is necessary to prevent injustice, which might be reliance damages rather than expectation damages. This doctrine serves as a substitute for consideration when its absence would lead to an unfair outcome.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration in certain circumstances. Promissory estoppel is invoked when one party makes a clear and unambiguous promise, the promisor reasonably expects the promisee to rely on that promise, the promisee does, in fact, rely on the promise to their detriment, and injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. This equitable doctrine prevents a party from going back on a promise when the other party has acted upon it in good faith. The reliance must be foreseeable and substantial. The court’s aim is to prevent unfairness and to uphold reasonable expectations fostered by a promise, even in the absence of formal contractual consideration. This is particularly relevant in situations where a formal contract may not have been fully formed or where a promise was made outside of a traditional bargained-for exchange. New Hampshire courts have recognized and applied this doctrine to ensure fairness in contractual dealings.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration when a promise is made and the promisor reasonably expects the promisee to rely on it, and the promisee does, in fact, rely on it to their detriment. This doctrine is particularly relevant when a contract may be unenforceable due to a lack of formal consideration. The key elements to establish promissory estoppel are: 1) a clear and definite promise, 2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made, and 3) injury sustained by the party asserting the estoppel. In the given scenario, Silas made a clear promise to donate a significant sum to the Concord Historical Society. The Historical Society, a non-profit organization in New Hampshire, reasonably relied on this promise by initiating fundraising efforts and incurring expenses for a new exhibit, which they would not have done without Silas’s commitment. The expenditure of funds and the commitment of resources constitute the detrimental reliance. Therefore, even if a formal contract with all elements of consideration was not fully established, promissory estoppel would likely be invoked in a New Hampshire court to enforce Silas’s promise, preventing him from revoking it after the Society has acted upon it. The Society’s reliance is both reasonable given the nature of the promise and foreseeable by Silas, and the incurred expenses represent the detriment.

In New Hampshire contract law, the concept of “consideration” is fundamental to the enforceability of a promise. Consideration refers to something of value exchanged between parties to a contract. It can be a promise to do something, a promise to refrain from doing something, or the actual performance of an act. For a contract to be valid, there must be a bargained-for exchange of legal value. This means that each party must give up something they have a legal right to keep, or do something they are not legally obligated to do, in exchange for the other party’s promise or performance. Past consideration, meaning something given or done before a promise is made, is generally not valid consideration because it was not given in exchange for the current promise. Similarly, a pre-existing legal duty does not constitute valid consideration, as a party is already obligated to perform that duty. Nominal consideration, which is a token amount of value given with no genuine intent to bargain, may also be insufficient. The focus is on the mutuality of obligation and the presence of a genuine benefit conferred or detriment suffered by each party.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration in certain circumstances. This doctrine, often invoked when a promise is made and relied upon to the detriment of the promisee, prevents injustice by holding the promisor to their word. For promissory estoppel to apply, several elements must be met: a clear and definite promise, reasonable and foreseeable reliance on that promise by the promisee, and actual reliance causing injury or detriment to the promisee. The court will then enforce the promise to the extent necessary to prevent injustice. In this scenario, although there was no bargained-for exchange of consideration in the traditional sense, the reliance by the architect on the developer’s promise to pay for the preliminary designs, which led to the architect incurring costs and foregoing other opportunities, establishes a strong case for promissory estoppel. The developer’s assurance of payment, even without a formal contract, created a reasonable expectation for the architect. The architect’s subsequent work and investment in those designs constitute detrimental reliance. Therefore, the developer would likely be estopped from denying payment for the preliminary designs.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration when a promise is made which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person, and which does induce such action or forbearance. The promisee must have relied on the promise to their detriment. The elements to establish promissory estoppel in New Hampshire are: (1) a clear and definite promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) actual reliance on the promise by the party to whom the promise is made; and (4) resulting injustice if the promise is not enforced. The court may award reliance damages or, in some cases, expectation damages to prevent injustice. In this scenario, while there was no formal contract with consideration, Ms. Albright’s promise to convey the antique writing desk to Mr. Finch was clear and definite. Mr. Finch’s significant expenditure of time and resources in restoring the desk, based on this promise, constitutes reasonable and foreseeable reliance. His actions were a direct result of the promise. Enforcing the promise is necessary to prevent injustice, as Mr. Finch has invested heavily in the desk with the understanding it would be his. Therefore, promissory estoppel is the applicable legal principle.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration when a promise is made that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person, and which does induce such action or forbearance, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. This doctrine is codified in New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 382-A:2-209, concerning modifications and waivers, which, while primarily for the sale of goods, reflects a broader legal acceptance of enforcing promises even without formal consideration under certain equitable circumstances. The key is the reliance interest of the promisee. If a promise is made without the intent to be bound, or if the promisee’s reliance is not foreseeable or reasonable, promissory estoppel will not apply. Furthermore, the promise must be sufficiently definite to be enforceable. In this scenario, the promise made by Mr. Abernathy to Ms. Bellweather regarding the architectural plans was specific and clear. Ms. Bellweather’s significant expenditure of time and resources in reliance on this promise, undertaking detailed drafting and consultations, demonstrates a clear detrimental reliance. The expectation that such reliance would occur is reasonable given the nature of the agreement. Therefore, enforcing the promise to compensate Ms. Bellweather for her work, even in the absence of a formal contract with explicit consideration exchanged at the outset, is justified under the principles of promissory estoppel as applied in New Hampshire.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration when a promise is made that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person, and which does induce such action or forbearance, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. This doctrine is rooted in fairness and preventing unconscionable outcomes. For a claim of promissory estoppel to succeed, the plaintiff must demonstrate a clear and unambiguous promise, reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the promisee, actual reliance causing detriment, and that injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. The reliance must be substantial and not merely a trivial change in position. The concept of “foreseeable reliance” is crucial, meaning the promisor could have anticipated that the promisee would act upon the promise. Furthermore, the detriment suffered by the promisee must be significant enough to warrant judicial intervention to prevent injustice. New Hampshire courts, like many others, interpret this doctrine to prevent the exploitation of reliance on a promise, even if it lacks formal consideration.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration in certain situations, allowing a promise to be enforced even if there is no formal bargained-for exchange. For promissory estoppel to apply, there must be a clear and unambiguous promise. The promisor must reasonably expect the promise to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person. The promise must, in fact, induce such action or forbearance. Finally, injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. This doctrine is rooted in principles of fairness and preventing unconscionable conduct. It is important to distinguish promissory estoppel from a unilateral contract, where acceptance occurs through performance. In promissory estoppel, the detrimental reliance itself creates the legal basis for enforcement, even if the promise was gratuitous or lacked the traditional elements of a contract. The reliance must be reasonable and foreseeable by the promisor. The remedy under promissory estoppel is typically limited to what is necessary to prevent injustice, which may be reliance damages rather than expectation damages. New Hampshire courts have applied this doctrine to uphold promises that would otherwise be unenforceable due to a lack of consideration, thereby protecting those who have reasonably relied on such promises to their detriment.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce a promise even in the absence of formal consideration, provided certain elements are met. These elements typically include a clear and definite promise, a reasonable and foreseeable reliance on that promise by the promisee, and actual reliance that results in detriment to the promisee. The promise must be of a nature that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person. Furthermore, the promise must induce such action or forbearance. Finally, injustice can only be avoided by enforcement of the promise. This doctrine serves as a substitute for consideration when strict contractual requirements are not satisfied but enforcing the promise is necessary to prevent unfairness. The focus is on the equitable enforcement of promises where a party has acted to their detriment based on a reasonable expectation induced by the promisor’s assurance, aligning with New Hampshire’s commitment to fairness in contractual dealings. The application of this doctrine prevents a promisor from reneging on a promise when doing so would cause significant harm to the promisee who reasonably relied upon it.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration in certain situations. This doctrine is typically invoked when one party makes a clear and unambiguous promise, the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee, the promisee does actually take action or forbear in reliance on the promise, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. This is rooted in principles of fairness and preventing unconscionable outcomes, even in the absence of a formal bargained-for exchange. The application of promissory estoppel requires a careful examination of the facts to determine if each element is met. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has consistently applied this doctrine to prevent hardship and ensure fairness in contractual dealings. For instance, in cases involving gratuitous promises that induce significant reliance, promissory estoppel may provide a remedy where traditional contract law might not. The focus is on the reasonableness of the reliance and the degree of detriment suffered by the promisee.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration in certain situations, particularly when a promise has been made and the promisee has reasonably relied on that promise to their detriment. The elements required to establish promissory estoppel in New Hampshire are: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) actual reliance by the party to their detriment; and (4) an injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. This doctrine is rooted in equity and aims to prevent unfairness when a promisor reneges on a promise that has induced action or forbearance. It is distinct from a breach of contract claim, as it does not require the presence of a bargained-for exchange, which is the traditional definition of consideration. The focus is on the reliance interest of the promisee. The court in New Hampshire will examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if the promise was indeed clear and if the reliance was both reasonable and resulted in a tangible detriment. The remedy for promissory estoppel is typically to prevent injustice, which might involve enforcing the promise or awarding reliance damages.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce a promise even in the absence of formal consideration, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions, derived from common law principles and often codified or interpreted by state courts, typically include: (1) a clear and definite promise; (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) actual and substantial reliance by that party; and (4) injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. The reliance must be both reasonable in the circumstances and of a nature that the promisor should have anticipated it. The detriment suffered by the promisee due to reliance is a key factor in determining whether injustice would occur. The purpose of promissory estoppel is to prevent unfairness when one party has been led to act to their detriment based on a promise, even if that promise lacked the traditional bargained-for exchange required for contract formation. This doctrine serves as a substitute for consideration in specific situations to ensure equitable outcomes in New Hampshire’s legal landscape.

In New Hampshire contract law, the concept of consideration is fundamental to the enforceability of a promise. Consideration is something of value exchanged between the parties to a contract. It can be a benefit conferred upon one party or a detriment suffered by the other. The doctrine of promissory estoppel, as recognized in New Hampshire, provides an exception to the requirement of consideration in certain circumstances. Promissory estoppel allows a promise to be enforced even without consideration if the promisor makes a promise that they should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person, and the promise does induce such action or forbearance, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. This equitable doctrine serves to prevent unfairness when one party relies to their detriment on a promise. For a claim of promissory estoppel to succeed in New Hampshire, the promise must be clear and definite, the reliance must be reasonable and foreseeable, and the detriment suffered must be substantial enough that enforcing the promise is the only way to avoid injustice. The court will weigh the equities involved.

In New Hampshire, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can serve as a substitute for consideration when a promise is made, and the promisor should reasonably expect the promisee to rely on that promise, and the promisee does in fact rely on the promise to their detriment. This reliance must be substantial and foreseeable. The elements typically examined are: 1) a clear and definite promise, 2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made, and 3) injury sustained by the party asserting reliance. New Hampshire case law, such as *Gage v. Town of Bow*, has affirmed the applicability of promissory estoppel in situations where a party has acted to their detriment based on a promise, even in the absence of formal consideration. The focus is on preventing injustice by enforcing promises that have induced reliance. The measure of recovery under promissory estoppel is typically limited to what is necessary to prevent injustice, often encompassing reliance damages rather than expectation damages. This means the injured party is put back in the position they would have been in had the promise not been made, rather than the position they would have been in had the promise been performed.