Stewart v. Cendant Mobility Services Corp.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
837 A.2d 736 (Conn. 2003)
Elizabeth Stewart (plaintiff) and her husband both worked as executives for Cendant Mobility (defendant); after Cendant fired her husband, Stewart's supervisor personally assured her that her husband working for a competitor would not affect her own job, telling her she had nothing to worry about and was a highly valued employee. Relying on those assurances, Stewart stayed at Cendant instead of pursuing other opportunities, despite being an at-will employee with highly marketable skills; Cendant later fired her anyway after learning her husband had joined a competitor, at which point she was owed over $812,000 in unpaid commissions. A jury found for Stewart on her promissory-estoppel claim and awarded $850,000, and Cendant appealed, arguing the promise lacked the necessary clarity and that Stewart hadn't shown detrimental reliance.
Whether detrimental reliance upon a clear and definite promise can make the promise binding.