Running Head: Life Skills Assignments #2 1

Life Skills Assignments #2

Jared Blake

BUL2131

Professor Hiram A. Paz, Esq.

April 3, 2017

Florida National University

Life Skills Assignments #2 2

Case Brief: John Salsbury-v- Northwestern Bell Telephone Co

This appeal was based on a trial court decision, whereby the trial court held that the letter

from the defendant could only be interpreted as a promissory undertaking, which gave rise to

contractual liability. In the initial case, Salsbury (plaintiff) had obtained a letter from the

defendant’s office manager, stating that the defendant had agreed to contribute a sum amount of

$15000 to the plaintiff as part of charity contributions establish Charles city college. The plaintiff

assumed the letter to legally represent a pledge and went ahead to use it to obtain supplies.

However, when the case was brought before the trial court, the plaintiff argued that he had no

knowledge of the letter and that he had only acted on the belief that the defendant would execute

it in the same manner pledge cards are executed. After the trial court held the letter to equally

represent promissory notes with contractual liability, North Western Telephone Co appealed.

The legal question that Supreme Court was faced with was to decide whether the defendant now

the appellant was bound to pay his subscription based on the letter written by their office

manager (Salsbury v Northwestern Bell Telephone Co, 1974). The issue here was to determine

whether the letter could be said to represent a pledge card and whether in that sense it would be

binding to the appellant hence holding him liable to pay the charity subscriptions amounting to

$1500 in a period of 3 years as the letter indicated.

The Supreme Court, departing from the decision and the rule applied by the trial court

considered the relationship between contract law rules and enforcement of charitable

subscription. The court considered consideration arising from charity subscriptions, which meant

that if the letter was interpreted t amount to a charity subscription, then under contractual terms,

the subscriber would be bound to provide consideration for the subscription made as was held in

Brokaw v McElroy.
Life Skills Assignments #2 3

However, the court found that solely relying on the consideration principle would be

unfair to some innocent subscribers due lack of conformity. Subsequently, the court also sought

to apply the principle of promissory estoppel. Though under criticism, promissory estoppel was

found to be applicable on the basis of detrimental reliance on the promise made. However the

same has received criticism with counterarguments that the enforcement of charitable

subscriptions should be the major goal hence should not be based on consideration or detrimental

reliance. This means that interpreting charity subscriptions on the contract doctrines of

consideration and estoppel is entirely sufficient.

In conclusion, after considerations of a number of principles applicable to the case, with

reference to charity subscriptions and the basis on which they should be enforced, the court

found that charitable subscriptions are meant for the good and benefit of the public. They are not

intended for personal gain hence interpreting them on the basis of the doctrines of contract law

would be unfair. This is why estoppel and consideration could not be fully applied in the

enforcement of charitable subscriptions. However, where such subscriptions are intended to be

legally binding, then any person makes one of such will be required to fulfill it by the law.
Life Skills Assignments #2 4

References

John Salsbury v Northwestern Bell Telephone Company. 221 N.W.2d 609 (1974). Retrieved on

3 April2017 from salsbury-v-north-western-bell-telephone-co-221-nw2d-609-_1974.pdf.