Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    To 9

    Uploaded by

    evans
    The Church of Narnia sued the ABCD Company after the company's CEO pledged $5 million to the church but failed to deliver the funds. The church bishop used $4.2 million of the promised funds to pay for architectural designs, a contractor, tools, and materials for a church expansion. However, the church did not receive any money in the first five weeks. When contacted, the company said it could no longer donate the funds since it had experienced losses. The court found the company was legally obligated to pay based on promissory estoppel since the church relied on the promise to its detriment by undertaking financial obligations for the project.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    To 9

    Uploaded by

    evans
    70 views2 pages
    The Church of Narnia sued the ABCD Company after the company's CEO pledged $5 million to the church but failed to deliver the funds. The church bishop used $4.2 million of the promised funds to pay for architectural designs, a contractor, tools, and materials for a church expansion. However, the church did not receive any money in the first five weeks. When contacted, the company said it could no longer donate the funds since it had experienced losses. The court found the company was legally obligated to pay based on promissory estoppel since the church relied on the promise to its detriment by undertaking financial obligations for the project.

    Original Title

    To9.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Church of Narnia sued the ABCD Company after the company's CEO pledged $5 million to the church but failed to deliver the funds. The church bishop used $4.2 million of the promised funds to pay for architectural designs, a contractor, tools, and materials for a church expansion. However, the church did not receive any money in the first five weeks. When contacted, the company said it could no longer donate the funds since it had experienced losses. The court found the company was legally obligated to pay based on promissory estoppel since the church relied on the promise to its detriment by undertaking financial obligations for the project.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    70 views2 pages

    To 9

    Uploaded by

    evans
    The Church of Narnia sued the ABCD Company after the company's CEO pledged $5 million to the church but failed to deliver the funds. The church bishop used $4.2 million of the promised funds to pay for architectural designs, a contractor, tools, and materials for a church expansion. However, the church did not receive any money in the first five weeks. When contacted, the company said it could no longer donate the funds since it had experienced losses. The court found the company was legally obligated to pay based on promissory estoppel since the church relied on the promise to its detriment by undertaking financial obligations for the project.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    To:

    From:

    Subject:

    Dated:  The Church of Narnia v. The ABCD Company

    It is the case of the ABCD Company whose CEO pledged through a letter to donate
    to the Bishop of the Church of Narnia a sum of $5,000,000 over a period of 4 to six
    weeks. The Bishop was happy at receiving the news since he always wanted to
    expand the church but was not getting the sum, so he could start the reconstruction
    work. He immediately contacted an architect and paid him $200,000 to design the
    new ambitious project. The architect’s design was very good and Bishop loved it. So,
    he also hired a contractor for $1000,000. Apart from the $1,000,000 for the labor, he
    also paid another $3,000,000 for the tools and materials required for the project.
    However, he did not receive any of the promised sum from the ABCD company till
    the fifth week and therefore decided to contact the CEO. He had not received the
    check and still incurred a huge expense. It was making him nervous. The most
    important thing here is that the Bishop undertook to spend the heavy sum because
    he had been promised it by the CEO of the ABCD Company. He had relied on the
    promise and undertaken all the expenses in this regard to expand the structure of
    the Church. Upon contacting the company, he was told that the company had run
    into losses soon after the CEO made the promise and therefore was unable to
    donate that sum. In this case, the contract between the Church and the company is
    legally enforceable based on promissory estoppel. “When the charity takes some
    action—such as the construction of a building or the initiation of a program in
    reliance on the donor’s promise to make the gift—the charity has relied on the
    promise to its detriment” (Monti, 2015). The church has relied upon the promise
    of the CEO to its detriment and that has resulted in losses for the Church. Based
    on promissory estoppel, the company would have to pay the promised sum.
    References:

    Monti, F. A. (2015). When Donors Back Out: Are Charitable Pledges Legally

    Enforceable?. In Inside Philanthropy. Retrieved December 6, 2016, from

    http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/the-gift-adviser/2015/11/4/when-donors-

    back-out-are-charitable-pledges-legally-enforcea.html

    You might also like