Summary of Greiner v. Greiner
131 Kan. 760, 293 P. 759 (1930)
Kansas Supreme Court

Issue: Can one revoke a promise if there isn’t consideration but they know the other party will have detriment due to reliance on the promise?

Parties:

P: Mom took back the promise of land to her son.  She argues that (1) she didn’t receive consideration.  (2) the promise to give land was merely a future intention to help son, not a definite contract.

D: son whose mom promised him 80 acres but she changed her mind.

Procedure: Son sued Mom.  Court ordered the mom to give son the land.

Mother appealed.

Facts: Mom promised to give her son 80 acres of land.  Son moved from his homestead to settle in the 80 acres.  The son made some improvements on the land and lived there for 1 year.  Then, his mom told him to move.

Reference: Restatement of Contracts §90 – A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action of forbearance of definite/substantial character on the promissee is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

Holding: Affirmed District Court verdict for Plaintiff.  Offer was made definite when mom segregated a 80 acre tract for her son.

Reason: Restatement of Contracts §90