Home improvement show for the remodel of her summerhouse in Maine

Full Answer Section

Ethical Theories: Several ethical theories are applicable to this situation:

• Deontology (Duty-Based Ethics): From a deontological perspective, Janice had a duty to act in good faith and keep her word. Once she made a clear request that she knew Mary would rely upon to her detriment, she had a moral obligation to follow through, or at least to provide timely notice that would mitigate Mary's potential losses. Her failure to do so, especially after the wallpaper was ordered and Mary's schedule was blocked, could be seen as a breach of this duty.
• Utilitarianism (Consequentialism): A utilitarian approach would focus on the consequences of Janice's actions. Her cancellation caused harm to Mary's business (financial loss and lost opportunity) without a clear overriding benefit to Janice (as the show was canceled, not her desire for a remodeled summerhouse in general). The greatest good for the greatest number would likely favor Mary being compensated for her losses, as this would support fair business dealings and prevent foreseeable harm.
• Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics would examine the character traits exhibited by Janice. Her sudden cancellation without regard for the foreseeable consequences on Mary's business might be seen as lacking in virtues such as fairness, responsibility, and consideration for others. A virtuous person would likely communicate promptly about the show cancellation and attempt to mitigate any negative impact on Mary.

In conclusion, Mary has a strong legal and ethical basis for seeking reimbursement from Janice. Promissory estoppel offers a viable legal theory for recovery, with damages likely including the cost of the custom wallpaper and potentially lost profits. Ethically, Janice's actions raise concerns from deontological, utilitarian, and virtue ethics perspectives, all suggesting a moral obligation to compensate Mary for the detriment she suffered due to her reasonable reliance on Janice's promise.

Scholarly Resources:

1. Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. S., & Prince, H. G. (2019). Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (9th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. This casebook provides a comprehensive overview of contract law principles, including the doctrine of promissory estoppel, with case examples and analysis.
2. Mallor, J. P., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A. W. (2016). Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment (16th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. This textbook discusses ethical theories in the context of business law, providing a framework for analyzing the ethical implications of Janice's actions.

Sample Answer

Yes, Mary likely has a strong case for reimbursement from Janice. Under the legal theory of promissory estoppel, Mary could prevail in recovering damages for the expenses she incurred and the lost business opportunity.

Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that allows a party to recover on a promise even in the absence of a formal contract, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions, ¹ generally recognized across jurisdictions, include:  

1. A clear and unambiguous promise: Janice's request to Mary to wallpaper her house with expensive custom wallpaper and an intricate design constitutes a clear promise.
2. Reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the promisee: Mary, as a solo business owner in the wallpapering trade, reasonably relied on Janice's promise by ordering the specific and expensive custom wallpaper ($5000 cost) and blocking off her calendar, thereby forgoing other potential jobs during that period. It was foreseeable to Janice that Mary would take these preparatory steps based on her request for a specialized and time-consuming service.
3. Detriment suffered by the promisee as a result of the reliance: Mary suffered a detriment because she is now stuck with the custom wallpaper that was specifically ordered for Janice's project and has lost the opportunity to book other jobs during the time she had reserved for Janice's summerhouse.
4. Injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise: If Janice is not held responsible for the consequences of her promise, Mary will suffer a financial loss due to the wasted cost of the wallpaper and the lost income from the blocked-off time. Enforcing the promise, at least to the extent of compensating Mary for her losses, is necessary to avoid this injustice.

Damages: Mary's damages could include:

• Reliance Damages: This would primarily cover the $5000 cost of the custom wallpaper that Mary ordered in reliance on Janice's promise. Mary might be able to mitigate these damages by attempting to sell the wallpaper to another client, but Janice would likely be responsible for any remaining loss.
• Lost Profits (Opportunity Cost): Mary blocked off her calendar, potentially turning down other jobs. Calculating this can be more complex and would require Mary to provide evidence of reasonably certain lost income due to her commitment to Janice's project. This might involve showing her average earnings during similar periods or specific jobs she had to decline.