Also known as: promisor
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A party in Roman law who undertakes an obligation by answering affirmatively to a stipulator in a formal oral contract known as a stipulation.
Roberto Reyes transferred his leasehold interest in a warehouse to Ridgeway Partners. The original lease contained an express promise to maintain structural supports that touched and concerned the premises. Ridgeway Partners took the transfer in privity of estate and was not released by the landlord. The transferee became obligated to perform the maintenance promise after the transfer.
Rosalind Reed delegated performance of her duty to supply custom parts under a sales contract to Rising Sun Electronics. The buyer had no substantial interest in having Reed perform personally. Reed remained liable for any breach even after the delegation. Reed continued to owe the duty despite the delegation.
Ralph Richardson sold his local insurance agency to Riverside Healthcare and promised not to compete in the state for twelve years. The hardship to Richardson and injury to the public from reduced competition outweighed the buyer's need for protection. Richardson's promise was unenforceable because the restraint failed the balancing test.
Rina Rahman conveyed a strip of land subject to a promise to preserve a driveway for a neighboring warehouse. The original parties intended the benefit to run with the transferred interest. The transferee took in privity of estate. The original promisor's successor remained bound to honor the access obligation.
Robert Rivera signed a letter stating he would keep an offer open if the offeree paid a reservation fee. Rivera was the person manifesting the intention to be bound. Rivera created an option contract once the fee was paid.
Rita Russell orally promised to sell land and the buyer took possession and made substantial improvements in reliance. The buyer sought specific enforcement. Russell was bound by the promise under the part performance doctrine despite the statute of frauds.
Mrs. Gladys Green owned a lot known as Lot S in the Manomet section of Plymouth. In July 1980 she advertised the lot for sale. On July 11 and 12 of that year, Mr. and Mrs. Hickey met with Mrs. Green to discuss purchasing the lot and reached an oral agreement to buy it for $15,000. On July 12 the Hickeys gave Mrs. Green a deposit check for $500. The check was marked on the back with the notation "Deposit on Lot . . . Massasoit Ave. Manomet . . . Subject to Variance from Town of Plymouth," but the payee line was left blank. Mrs. Green held the check without filling in the payee name, cashing it, or endorsing it. By July 16 it was determined that no zoning variance would be required. Relying on the arrangements with Mrs. Green, the Hickeys advertised their house on Sachem Road for sale in newspapers on three days in July 1980. They agreed to sell their house to a purchaser and accepted a $500 deposit check from that purchaser, which they deposited in their own account. On July 24 Mrs. Green informed the Hickeys that she no longer intended to sell the lot to them and had decided to sell it to another buyer for $16,000. The Hickeys offered Mrs. Green $16,000 for Lot S, but she refused the offer. The Hickeys filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking specific performance of the agreement with Mrs. Green. The case was presented on a stipulation of facts with attached documents, which the Superior Court judge adopted as findings. The trial judge granted specific performance to the Hickeys. Mrs. Green appealed the decision to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
View caseThe reus promittendi is the party who answers the stipulator's question by undertaking the obligation in the formal oral exchange that creates the contract.
Yes. The reus promittendi who delegates performance stays liable for any breach even when the other party has no substantial interest in personal performance.
The promise runs when it touches and concerns the land, the parties intend it to run, the transferee is not released, and privity of estate is created by the transfer.
The reus promittendi is the person whose manifestation of intention to act or refrain from acting justifies the promisee in understanding that a commitment has been made.
…as to future acts does not support an action for fraud merely because the represented act did not happen, unless the promisor did not intend to perform at the time the promise was made. Vandeputte v. Soderholm , 298 Minn. 505, 508, 216 N.W.2d 144, 147 (1974). Cohen admits that the reporters intended to keep their…