INTEROFFICE MEMO TWO
TO:
Supervising Attorney
FROM:
Paralegal
DATE:
February 19, 2021
RE:
Doyle v. State
INSTRUCTIONS
John
Doyle
requested
that
our
office
represent
Doyle’s
Tavern
in
a
detrimental
reliance/quasi
breach
of
contract
action
based
upon
government
assurances
that
his
business,
and
many
others,
claim
they
were
misled
by
State’s
Governor
who,
after
three
months
into
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
assured
and
publicly
declared
that
bars
and
restaurants
could
partially
reopen
on
July
1,
2020.
The
purpose
of
this
memo
is
to
determine
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
Mr.
Doyle’s case.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In
early
March
2020
state
and
federal
mandates
were
put
into
place
that
forced
bars
and
restaurants to shut down.
On
June
15,
2020
State
Governor,
Jane
Kennedy
publicly
announced
that
bars
and
restaurants
could
reopen
on
July
1,
2020
for
partial
indoor
dining
with
capacity
restrictions
for
social
distancing.
On
June
27,
2020
Governor
Kennedy
rescinded
the
prior
order,
thus
cancelling
the
reopening
of
all indoor activities, including the reopening of
indoor dining in bars and restaurants.
Mr.
Doyle
owns
the
restaurant,
Doyle’s
Tavern.
The
tavern
can
hold
200
patrons
in
the
indoor
restaurant,
150
patrons
in
the
Banquet
Room,
and
100
patrons
in
outdoor
dining.
They
also have
a
catering
service
for
private
parties.
Doyle’s
Tavern
is
located
in
a
summer-seasonal
town
and
so
conducts
the
majority
of
their
business
during
the
summer.
Prior
to
the
announcement,
Doyle’s
Tavern
strictly
followed
State
guidelines
in
regards
to
outdoor
dining
and
a
small
amount of take out.
During
COVID-19,
Doyle’s
Tavern
was
barely
breaking
even
and
the
employees
were
all
part
time.
After
the
reopening
of
indoor
dining
was
announced,
Doyle’s
Tavern
began
taking
reservations
for
indoor
dining
and
booked
three
weddings
to
cater.
In
preparation
for
the
influx
of
patrons,
Mr.
Doyle
ordered
$15,000
worth
of
fresh
vegetables,
lobsters,
meats,
kegs
of
craft
draft
beer,
liquors, champagne, and French wine.
Since
Governor
Kennedy
cancelled
the
reopening
of
indoor
dining,
the
majority
of
Mr.
Doyle’s
order went to waste, causing him to lose a sizable
amount of money.
ISSUE
Does Mr. Doyle have a case against the State for a
detrimental reliance/quasi breach of contract?
BRIEF ANSWER
I
believe
Mr.
Doyle
does
have
a
case
against
the
State
because
he
acted
within
reason
when
he
placed
the
food
and
drink
order.
Any
reasonable
person
would
assume
that
Governor
Kennedy
would
be
a
reliable
source
of
information
and
with
no
indication
that
she
would
go
back
on
her
word, it is reasonable for Mr. Doyle to trust her
and prepare his business for reopening.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Under
State
Code
Art.
2
§
1423,
detrimental
reliance
takes
place
when
“a
party
may
be
obligated
by
a
promise
when
he
knew
or
should
have
known
that
the
promise
would
induce
the
other
TO:
Supervising Attorney
FROM:
Paralegal
DATE:
February 19, 2021
RE:
Doyle v. State
INSTRUCTIONS
John
Doyle
requested
that
our
office
represent
Doyle’s
Tavern
in
a
detrimental
reliance/quasi
breach
of
contract
action
based
upon
government
assurances
that
his
business,
and
many
others,
claim
they
were
misled
by
State’s
Governor
who,
after
three
months
into
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
assured
and
publicly
declared
that
bars
and
restaurants
could
partially
reopen
on
July
1,
2020.
The
purpose
of
this
memo
is
to
determine
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
Mr.
Doyle’s case.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In
early
March
2020
state
and
federal
mandates
were
put
into
place
that
forced
bars
and
restaurants to shut down.
On
June
15,
2020
State
Governor,
Jane
Kennedy
publicly
announced
that
bars
and
restaurants
could
reopen
on
July
1,
2020
for
partial
indoor
dining
with
capacity
restrictions
for
social
distancing.
On
June
27,
2020
Governor
Kennedy
rescinded
the
prior
order,
thus
cancelling
the
reopening
of
all indoor activities, including the reopening of
indoor dining in bars and restaurants.
Mr.
Doyle
owns
the
restaurant,
Doyle’s
Tavern.
The
tavern
can
hold
200
patrons
in
the
indoor
restaurant,
150
patrons
in
the
Banquet
Room,
and
100
patrons
in
outdoor
dining.
They
also have
a
catering
service
for
private
parties.
Doyle’s
Tavern
is
located
in
a
summer-seasonal
town
and
so
conducts
the
majority
of
their
business
during
the
summer.
Prior
to
the
announcement,
Doyle’s
Tavern
strictly
followed
State
guidelines
in
regards
to
outdoor
dining
and
a
small
amount of take out.
During
COVID-19,
Doyle’s
Tavern
was
barely
breaking
even
and
the
employees
were
all
part
time.
After
the
reopening
of
indoor
dining
was
announced,
Doyle’s
Tavern
began
taking
reservations
for
indoor
dining
and
booked
three
weddings
to
cater.
In
preparation
for
the
influx
of
patrons,
Mr.
Doyle
ordered
$15,000
worth
of
fresh
vegetables,
lobsters,
meats,
kegs
of
craft
draft
beer,
liquors, champagne, and French wine.
Since
Governor
Kennedy
cancelled
the
reopening
of
indoor
dining,
the
majority
of
Mr.
Doyle’s
order went to waste, causing him to lose a sizable
amount of money.
ISSUE
Does Mr. Doyle have a case against the State for a
detrimental reliance/quasi breach of contract?
BRIEF ANSWER
I
believe
Mr.
Doyle
does
have
a
case
against
the
State
because
he
acted
within
reason
when
he
placed
the
food
and
drink
order.
Any
reasonable
person
would
assume
that
Governor
Kennedy
would
be
a
reliable
source
of
information
and
with
no
indication
that
she
would
go
back
on
her
word, it is reasonable for Mr. Doyle to trust her
and prepare his business for reopening.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Under
State
Code
Art.
2
§
1423,
detrimental
reliance
takes
place
when
“a
party
may
be
obligated
by
a
promise
when
he
knew
or
should
have
known
that
the
promise
would
induce
the
other
