II. Are the factors of detrimental reliance against a government agency as presented in Gold Finger's Casino,
Question:
II. Are the factors of detrimental reliance against a government agency as presented in Gold Finger's Casino, Inc. v. State Department of Taxes,123 State 2d 456 (2000) present in Doyle v. State?
In determining whether these factors of detrimental reliance are present in accordance withGold Finger's Casino, Inc. v. State Department of Taxes,123 State 2d 456 (2000), it is necessary to break down the facts of our client's case against the court's opinion. One clear fact is that John Doyle was preparing for the reopening of his Tavern when Governor Kennedy announced the reopening of bars and restaurants. Consequently, purchases were made in anticipation for reservations, catering events, as well as weddings, that had been booked and equaled the amount of $15,000.
In considering Gold's Finger, the first factor states, "(1) unequivocal advice from an unusually authoritative source." In our case, Governor Kennedy made a public statement that bars would be open, with restriction on indoor dining, by July 1, 2020. Governor Kennedy gave unequivocal advice and is an authoritative source, meaning that the first factor is met.
The second factor states, "(2) reasonablerelianceon that advice by an individual." John Doyle had to shut down his place of business and was greatly affected by this. He followed strict guidelines for outdoor seating. When Governor Kennedy publicly announced that there would be a partial reopening of bars and restaurants on July 1, 2020, John Doyle relied on that advice and would meet the second factor.
The third factor states, "(3) extreme harm resulting from thatreliance." In our case, John Doyle relied on this public announcement and started receiving reservations for indoor dining, catering job, as well as wedding events. Anticipating this influx, $15,000 was spent on food and beverages. When Governor Kennedy recanted her public announcement, this would qualify as extreme harm.
Lastly, the fourth factor states, "(4) gross injustice to the individual." In our case, there was full reliance on Governor Kennedy's public announcement in which preparations were made so when it was recanted within a short timeframe, no preparations for storing the food and drinks could be made beforehand. Our client lost a significant amount of money and was unable to reopen his business. Due to this reliance on Governor Kennedy's statement, this would quality as gross injustice.
I believe that the strengths of our case would be the reliance on government assurances that were made publicly and can be argues that John Doyle and like establishments relied on this clear and concise statement. Another argument to consider would be that John Doyle made every effort to prepare his establishment for the partial reopening of his business and consequently suffered economic damages.
The defense may argue that due to the rise of Covid-19 numbers, they acted in a way to protect the public's health and safety by redacting reopening, thus relieving them of their responsibility. They may also argue that its reliance on the current tracking of numbers of Covid-19 cases was an unforeseen difficulty to contend with during the height of the pandemic. Another argument could be that John Doyle did not consider the state of the pandemic or that buying $15,000 worth of perishable items could result in loss of economic damage.
Given the above legal analysis, what would be the best way to concisely summarize the strongest position on this issue and predict an outcome?
Intermediate Accounting
ISBN: 978-0132162302
1st edition
Authors: Elizabeth A. Gordon, Jana S. Raedy, Alexander J. Sannella