New Hampshire
How Bennett v. State of Maryland applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Contracts.
New Hampshire follows the principle of reasonable reliance in contract law, similar to the principles articulated in Bennett v. State of Maryland. This approach allows parties to recover damages based on their reliance on the other party's promises even when a formal contract may not exist.
In New Hampshire, the rule for recovery based on reasonable reliance is that a party may be entitled to compensation for losses resulting from reliance on a promise, provided the reliance was foreseeable and justified.
The court held that reasonable reliance on a governmental promise could result in recovery even in the absence of a formal contract.
This case affirmed the use of reliance damages where a party made significant changes to their position based on a promise from another.
The court ruled that a legitimate expectation created by a governmental promise can give rise to enforceable rights under certain conditions.
New Hampshire's approach aligns with the federal doctrine of promissory estoppel, relying on reasonable reliance. However, some federal courts may have a more stringent requirement for establishing the promise itself and the reasonableness of reliance than what is practiced in New Hampshire.
Understanding the nuances of reliance principles, particularly as they apply in the context of state actions, can be critical for the New Hampshire bar exam, given its emphasis on state-specific contract law.