Business Law case study, help me please!!!!?

Samir is walking down Princes Street one saturday morning when he runs into an old friend, Susan, whom he offers to meet for a meal at 7 o'clock that evening at the Shanghai Suprise restaurant. Susan accepts and rushes to her favourite designer clothing store, Tiffany's Boutique, in order to purchase an outfit for her night out with Samir. Susan spends nearly 拢1,000 on her outfit from Tiffany's. As things later turn out Samir forgets to turn up. Susan is now determined to sue him for the cost of her new outfit, her taxi and the disappointment caused.





Can anyone help me with what legal state this could possibly be?


Im thinking around the lines of 'Termination of Contract' Perhaps that of 'Acceptilation'. I would very much appreciate the help. I've an assesment on it tomorrow, and need to know my cases'.


Thanks in advance.Business Law case study, help me please!!!!?
Susan does not have a case against Samir. I will keep this answer to contract related law because this is a business class.





Samir has two defenses under a contract theory. First, there is no contract due to a lack of consideration. Here, for there to be a contract, one person must make an offer that is bargained in exchange for something of value. Samir agreed to meet Susan at a specified time, but did not promise to give anything except maybe his shining company. There was no agreement as to what Samir would get in exchange for him meeting Susan for dinner. There is no contract due to lack of consideration.





Lack of consideration is not always necessary for contract liability. We find liability when one party has reasonably relied upon another's promise to a detriment under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Here, Susan has relied upon Samir to show up for the date. She bought several goods under this reliance and suffered a detriment when he did not show up. However, her reliance must be reasonable. Reasonable reliance is best illustrated in the case of Hadley v. Baxendale. In that case, a delivery person failed to deliver a drill to a mill. This failure caused severe economic loss due to the stopped mill. However, the possibility of stopped work was never part of the consideration between delivery person and the mill. Consequently, the delivery person could not be found liable. In our case, there is no evidence that Susan communicated her reliance to Samir. Furthermore, the value of her reliance is not very reasonable under the circumstances. A person of ordinary prudence would not expect to be liable for thousands of dollars due to a missed date. Because Samir had no reasonable expectation to cover any reliance damage from Susan, he would successfully defend against a suit from Susan.





Your fact pattern seems to illustrate reliance damages principles, so I think you should focus on that more. I don't know what cases you studied in your class and there are literally hundreds that illustrate the same legal principles