When parties to a contract make promises to perform their obligations, and one party reasonably relies on the other party’s promise—but the party making the promise fails to perform, causing harm or loss to the party who relied on the promise—the party who relied on the promise to perform is said to have relied to its detriment.

This legal concept is called detrimental reliance. Detrimental reliance may serve as a substitute for consideration, and make an otherwise unenforceable contract enforceable.

Thus, detrimental reliance is a legal concept based on fairness (known as equity or equitable), and is equivalent to contractual promissory estoppel (due to the other party’s reliance, the party who did not keep its promise is prohibited from challenging the enforceability of its promise).

Detrimental reliance is not a separate tort cause of action.

In Virginia, detrimental reliance, also known as promissory estoppel, is a legal doctrine that can make an otherwise unenforceable contract enforceable when one party relies on the promise of the other to their detriment. This concept is grounded in principles of fairness and equity. For promissory estoppel to apply in Virginia, the promise must be one that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee, the promisee must indeed take action or refrain from it, and injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. Detrimental reliance is not an independent cause of action in tort, but rather a principle that can affect the enforceability of contractual promises. Virginia courts will consider the specific circumstances of each case to determine whether the elements of promissory estoppel are met, thereby requiring the promisor to fulfill their promise.