The promise of a donation from ABCD Company was a good way for the Church to get what they needed, so they hired an architect and a contractor and made an initial payment. During those days, Cleric called the CEO of ABCD Company and guaranteed himself that he would get a gift in many days. As a result of that discussion, the Religious administrator paid for the work (Neymeyer, 2021). An example in point is ABCD Company, whose CEO agreed in writing to contribute $5,000,000 over four to six weeks to the Bishop of Narnia’s Church. Several days later, the Bishop phoned the CEO of the ABCD Firm to ask when he would get the gift, but the Company was unable to make the payment because of the current economic climate. Eventually, the Bishop received the donation. As a matter of public policy, the Bishop of Narnia Church has placed his faith in the CEO of ABCD Company’s promise to donate funds to the charity (Neymeyer, 2021). Suppose the Bishop of Narnia Church takes the matter to Court. In that case, he may have a chance to win because, under the law, promises of charitable donations can be enforced under the doctrine of promissory estoppel without a showing of consideration or adverse reliance on the part of the recipient charity.
The Bishop was delighted to hear the news since he had long wished to enlarge the Church but had never received the funds necessary to do so. He promptly hired an architect for the new ambitious project and gave him $200,000 upfront. Bishop was a fan of the architect’s design. So he also hired a contractor for 1 million dollars (Neymeyer, 2021). As well as paying the $1,000,000 in wages, he spent an additional $3,000,000 on the necessary equipment and supplies for the project. After waiting until the sixth week to hear back from ABCD, he decided to contact the CEO. He still had to pay a large sum of money since he hadn’t gotten the cheque. He was becoming tense about it all.
To understand why the Bishop decided to spend so much money, one must remember that the CEO of ABCD Company promised him the money. He had put his faith in the promise and assumed all of the associated costs of building out the Church (Neymeyer, 2021). When he contacted the firm, he was informed that the Company had lost money shortly after the CEO made the commitment and could not provide him with the promised amount. Based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Church and Company’s contract may be enforced in this situation (Neymeyer, 2021). “The charity has relied on the promise to its disadvantage when it takes some action—such as constructing a facility or starting a program—in reliance on the donor’s pledge to contribute.” To its disadvantage, the Church has put its faith in the CEO’s pledge, which has led to losses. Promissory estoppel would require the corporation to pay the agreed-upon payment.
The Court may pick some comparable instances to utilize them as a reference and might be used as a platform for the Court to dictate a positive result for the Company. They might try to uncover situations where the Court did not enforce promissory estoppel. ABCD Company pledged to contribute the money to Narnia’s Church, but for some reason, things were not going well for them, for the promise couldn’t be honoured at that moment (Neymeyer, 2021). However, in rare instances, the Court has held that a gift should not be mandatory and enforceable on the pledger. However, in most instances, the courts ruled in favour of the charity since they took some action in response to a donor’s pledge of a gift. Even though the donor is not able to meet their promises, this decision cannot be reversed under any circumstances.
In conclusion, the Court could rule in favour of the Church. But suppose the ABCD Company hired an experienced attorney. In that case, they could try to avoid having to pay as much money as they otherwise would have had to because the Company’s financial situation was not the best, which is why they were unable to fulfil their promise.
Reference
Neymeyer, R. (2021). Fans Strike Out with Foul Ball Litigation. In Sports and the Law (pp. 24-27). Routledge.
write