## Facts

- William Skebba worked for M.W. Kasch Co. for many years and rose through senior sales and management roles.
- In 1993, the company faced serious financial problems, and Skebba received an outside job opportunity.
- Skebba told owner Jeffrey C. Kasch he planned to leave; Kasch asked what would keep him and indicated that leaving then would be viewed negatively in the industry.
- Skebba proposed that he would stay if Kasch promised to pay him $250,000 upon any of three events: (1) sale of the company, (2) Skebba’s lawful termination, or (3) Skebba’s retirement.
- The jury credited evidence that Kasch agreed and said he would have the agreement put in writing; Skebba declined the outside offer and stayed from late 1993 until 1999, when company assets were sold.
- Skebba repeatedly asked for a written summary, but none was provided.
- After the sale, Kasch refused to pay and denied making the promise.
- Skebba sued for breach of contract and promissory estoppel.

## Issues

1. Whether promissory estoppel in Wisconsin permits specific performance (payment of the promised $250,000) when a promise induced substantial reliance and the jury found the promised amount equals the detriment.
2. Whether the circuit court misread Hoffman v. Red Owl Food Stores as barring specific enforcement and requiring proof of alternative-job earnings to establish damages.

## Decision

- The jury found no contract, but found a promise, reasonable and foreseeable reliance, and a $250,000 detriment caused by the reliance.
- The circuit court refused to award $250,000, concluding Skebba failed to prove damages because he did not quantify what he would have earned in the foregone job, and reading Hoffman to preclude specific performance.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court misinterpreted Hoffman.
- The Court of Appeals held that, on these facts, enforcing the promise as made (payment of $250,000) was an available and appropriate remedy and directed entry of judgment consistent with that remedy.

## Legal Principles

- Promissory estoppel requires: (1) a promise the promisor should reasonably expect to induce definite and substantial action or forbearance, (2) actual inducement of such action or forbearance, and (3) enforcement necessary to avoid injustice.
- Remedies for promissory estoppel are equitable and case-specific; courts may consider all circumstances in selecting relief sufficient to prevent injustice.
- Hoffman does not impose a rigid limitation to a particular measure of reliance damages or categorically bar specific performance in promissory estoppel cases.
- When the factfinder determines that the promised payment is the exact measure of the promisee’s reliance detriment, specific performance (or its monetary equivalent) may be the only adequate remedy to avoid injustice.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that promissory estoppel can support specific enforcement of a clear promise where the promise induced substantial forbearance and the jury found the promised amount equals the detriment; it reversed the denial of relief and remanded for judgment awarding $250,000.


Skebba v. Kasch, 297 Wis. 2d 401 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006)