Barker v. CTC Sales Corp.

Holding: did the trial court make the right decision when it dismissed the case for failure
to state a claim?
There is no legal consequence arising out of the facts that he put down

- He turned down another job that offered more money he was told by his boss that he
would have job until company becomes insolvent but then got fired.
-Employment at Will: that at any time and for any reason either the employer or the
employee can quit the employment relationship.
Three requirements for promissory estoppel:
Consideration, reliance, injustice
Cohen v Cowles Media:
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Cowles Media Co. (Defendant), promised the
Plaintiff, Cohen (Plaintiff), confidentiality in order to receive certain information to be
published. Defendant failed to adhere to the agreement and as a result the Plaintiff lost his
employment and received a damage award by the trial court.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Compensatory damages are a proper remedy to avoid the
injustice under a promissory estoppel claim.
Facts. A newspaper owned by Defendant published a story reporting that a nominee for
Lieutenant Governor had been charged with three counts of unlawful assembly and
previously convicted of shoplifting. The newspapers revealed Plaintiff as the source and
named the firm he worked for. It is undisputed that Plaintiff gave this information in
return for the reporters promises to keep his identity secret. As a result Plaintiff was
fired.
The case was submitted to the jury on the theory of breach of contract and
misrepresentation. The jury found liability on both counts and awarded $200,000 in
compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages against each newspaper for
misrepresentation. The Court of Appeals set aside the misrepresentation damages, but
affirmed the compensatory damages.
The State Supreme Court affirmed the setting aside of punitive damages. Also, decided
that the compensatory damages were not enforceable under standard breach of contracts
theory. (Parties had not intended to assume legal obligation.) The award could be
enforced under the theory of reliance, but that such a decision would intrude into the

newspapers first Amendment rights.

The United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) held that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel does not implicate the First Amendment.
Issue. Is the award sustainable under the theory of promissory estoppel?
Held. Yes. Under the restatement, the reporters promise was expected to induce and did
induce the disclosure necessary for the story. A breach of that promise should result in
damages to avoid injustice.
Restatement Second Section:90 states: A promise which is expected to induce definite
action by the promisee, and does induce the action is binding if injustice can be avoided
only by enforcing the promise. The promise must be (1) clear and definite and (2) the
promisor must have intended to induce reliance on the part of the promisee and such
reliance must have occurred to the promisees detriment.
Plaintiff receives the verdict of $200,000 for compensatory damages. Courts previously
held that this would not be considered a contract, but in this case they decided that the
arrangement that they had was considered a confidence since there was supposed to be
confidentiality and the willingness to give that information was based on confidentiality.
This case also addresses the freedom of speech if as a media outlet you have the right to
freedom of speech which would mean giving up your source.