## Facts

- Kathleen Rice previously worked for the Alaska Democratic Party and later worked for the Maryland Democratic Party.
- Greg Wakefield, as chair-elect (later chair) of the Alaska Democratic Party, discussed hiring Rice as the Party’s executive director.
- Rice alleged Wakefield orally promised her full-time employment as executive director for at least two years at $36,000 per year, with fringe benefits of about $4,000 per year, and potential extension if Wakefield was re-elected.
- Rice alleged she accepted the offer in fall 1992, resigned from other political employment that could have continued indefinitely at comparable pay, and moved from Maryland to Alaska in reliance on the promise.
- No written employment contract was executed between Rice and Wakefield or the Party.
- In February 1993, the Party’s executive committee advised Wakefield he could not hire Rice; Wakefield later informed Rice she would not be hired.
- Rice sued the Alaska Democratic Party and Wakefield; the superior court allowed promissory estoppel and misrepresentation claims to proceed to trial.
- A jury awarded Rice $28,864 for promissory estoppel and $1,558 for misrepresentation; the trial court denied directed verdict and JNOV motions.

## Issues

1. Whether promissory estoppel may enforce an oral employment promise otherwise within the Statute of Frauds.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported findings of a clear promise, reasonable and detrimental reliance, and the need to enforce the promise to avoid injustice.
3. Whether Wakefield had actual, implied, or apparent authority to bind the Party, and whether authority questions were properly submitted to the jury.
4. Whether evidence supported the misrepresentation verdict and a finding that Wakefield acted within the scope of his agency for the Party.
5. Whether the jury instructions and damages awards were legally proper and supported by the evidence.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Rice.
- The court held an oral agreement within the Statute of Frauds may be enforced under promissory estoppel and adopted Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 139.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding that the Party should have expected Rice to rely, that she did rely by quitting work and relocating, and that enforcement was necessary to avoid injustice.
- The court upheld submitting agency and authority to the jury and concluded the evidence supported a finding of general authority for Wakefield as chair-elect/chair.
- The court upheld the misrepresentation verdict and damages as supported by the record.
- The court rejected challenges to the jury instructions (including omission of “definite and substantial” language when read as a whole) and upheld the damages as not excessive.

## Legal Principles

- A promise is enforceable notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds when the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance, the promise does so induce it, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement. (Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 139)
- Promissory estoppel may supply relief for reliance on an oral multi-year employment promise when reliance is substantial and foreseeable.
- Agency may be established through actual, implied, or apparent authority; where evidence supports authority, the issue may be for the jury.
- A principal may be liable for misrepresentations made by an agent acting in the course of the principal’s business and within the scope of agency.
- Jury instructions are reviewed in context as a whole; damages awards are upheld when supported by evidence and not excessive.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed verdicts awarding reliance-based recovery and limited tort damages, holding that promissory estoppel under Restatement § 139 can enforce an oral multi-year employment promise despite the Statute of Frauds when foreseeable, substantial reliance makes nonenforcement unjust, and that the party chair’s authority and related misrepresentations were properly treated as jury questions on the evidence.


Alaska Democratic Party v. Rice, 934 P.2d 1313 (Alaska 1997)