Prommisory Estoppel

Paper details:

An article written by Claudia Driefus and published in Glamour magazine discussed therapists who sexually exploit their patients. Jill Ruzicka had told Dreifus that she (Ruzicka) was sexually abused as a child by her father and later by her therapist. Driefus had promised to withhold Ruzicka’s identity from the article and the published article identified Ruzicka by a fictitious name (Lundquist).

In the article, Dreifus stated that “Lundquist” was an attorney who had served on the Minnesota Task Force Against Sexual Abuse. This fact identified Ruzicka because she was the only woman who served on the task force. Ruzicka asserted that she had relied to her detriment on Dreifus’ promise and sued Driefus to recover damages under, among other theories, a theory of promissory estoppel.

Under the relevant state law, to support a claim for promissory estoppel, the plaintiff must prove (1) that the promise was clear and definite, (2) that the promisor intended to induce reliance on the part of the promisee and such reliance occurred on the part of the promisee and (3) that the promise must be enforced to prevent injustice.

What should the court decide? Discuss FULLY.

A minimum of 250 words is required for the assignment. Grammar and punctuation are important so points will be deducted for excessive mistakes.