The fact pattern
Read it twice before you look at the answer
A manager tells an hourly employee, 'If you keep doing your job well this quarter, I'll give you a $2/hour raise.' The employee continues performing her existing duties as usual. At quarter's end the manager refuses to pay the raise. Separately, two weeks before, the same manager had said, 'I promise you a $1,000 bonus next month — go ahead and put down the deposit on that apartment.' The employee signed a lease in reliance. The manager now denies both promises. The employee sues.
Try it before you scroll
Spend 15 minutes writing your own IRAC answer first — the model below is far more useful after you have committed to your own issue list. These issues are in the facts:
- Consideration for the raise — the pre-existing duty rule
- Whether continuing existing duties is bargained-for consideration
- Promissory estoppel as a substitute for consideration (the bonus)
- Detrimental, foreseeable reliance
Model IRAC answer
One way to write it — not the only way. Compare it to yours.
Issue
First, whether the promised $2/hour raise is enforceable when the employee only continued her existing duties. Second, whether the $1,000 bonus promise is enforceable under promissory estoppel given the employee's reliance.
Rule
A promise is enforceable as a contract only if supported by consideration — a bargained-for exchange in which each party incurs a legal detriment. Under the pre-existing duty rule, performing or promising to perform something one is already legally obligated to do is not consideration. Where consideration is absent, a promise may still be enforced under promissory estoppel if the promisor should reasonably expect the promise to induce action, the promisee actually and reasonably relies to her detriment, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement.
Application
The raise promise likely fails for lack of consideration. The manager conditioned the raise on the employee 'doing her job well' — but performing her existing duties is something she was already obligated to do. Under the pre-existing duty rule, continuing to do her current job is not a new legal detriment and therefore is not bargained-for consideration. The employee could argue that 'doing your job well' demanded performance above her baseline obligation, which would be a new detriment; the answer turns on whether the promise sought something beyond the status quo.
The bonus promise is the stronger claim, but under promissory estoppel rather than consideration. The manager told the employee to 'go ahead and put down the deposit,' which shows he should reasonably have expected the promise to induce action. The employee actually relied by signing a lease, that reliance was reasonable given the explicit instruction, and it was detrimental — she is now bound to rent payments. If those elements hold, a court may enforce the bonus promise to the extent necessary to avoid injustice, potentially limited to her reliance damages.
Conclusion
The raise promise is probably unenforceable for want of consideration under the pre-existing duty rule, unless the employee can show it demanded performance beyond her existing duties. The bonus promise is likely enforceable under promissory estoppel because the manager induced detrimental, reasonable reliance — the lease signing — though recovery may be measured by reliance rather than the full $1,000.
Verify before you rely on this. This is an original teaching example, not legal advice. Rules vary by jurisdiction and by your professor's framing — check every rule statement against your casebook and class notes before using it.
Now try it timed.
Open the IRAC Practice Gym, set a 15-minute timer, and write your own answer to this fact pattern. You get feedback that helps you think — never an answer written for you.