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 Vermont, the legal concept of detrimental reliance, also known as promissory estoppel, is recognized and can be used to enforce a contract that may otherwise lack consideration. This principle applies when one party makes a promise that the other party relies upon to their detriment. If the promising party fails to fulfill their promise, and the other party has suffered harm due to their reliance on that promise, the harmed party may invoke detrimental reliance to enforce the contract. The doctrine is grounded in principles of fairness and equity, aiming to prevent injustice that would result if the promise were not enforced. Detrimental reliance in Vermont is not considered a separate tort but rather a means to enforce contractual obligations based on the equities of the situation. It is important to note that specific applications of this doctrine can vary, and an attorney can provide guidance on how it may apply to individual circumstances within the state.