written response to problem 1

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page. I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.

1. William Skebba was a top sales executive for M.W. Kasch Co. The company was failing financially, and Skebba received another job offer. Jeffrey Kasch, one of the owners of the company, persuaded Skebba not to take the job and agreed to pay Skebba $250,000 if the company were sold while Skebba was still employed there. Though Skebba repeatedly asked for a written me- morialization of the agreement, Kasch never provided one. The company was sold for $5.1 million; however, Kasch refused to pay Skebba the promised amount, de- nying ever having made the agreement. Assuming that there is no enforceable contract here, can Skebba re- cover by claiming promissory estoppel? What would be his recovery