On March 10, Martin entered into an oral contract with Wilson. Under the oral contract, they agreed that Wilson will work for Martin for two years for a salary of $50,000 per year. Wilson quit his job the next day so that he could join Martin. But on March 12, Martin called Wilson and repudiated the contract, stating that he had decided not to hire him after all. If Wilson decides to sue, which of the following is most likely to be true?

A.Wilson may use the doctrine of promissory estoppel to show that he had materially relied on the oral promise and will suffer serious losses if the promise is not enforced.

B.Wilson cannot sue Martin because there was no written contract.

C.Oral contracts are completely voidable and have no weight in the court.

D.Wilson can sue Martin for false imprisonment and unintentional tort because Wilson did not have a written contract, and this becomes the best alternate course of action.

A. Wilson may use the doctrine of promissory estoppel to show that he had materially relied on the oral promise and will suffer serious losses if the promise is not enforced.

Explanation:

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is of relevance to this case. While there was no written contract, in law, an oral contract is also applicable and so an individual can be sued on the basis of an oral contract. The last option is out of question because it is difficult to prove that it was an unintentional tort because that requires proof of loss which is difficult to calculate.