Rosalie, a wealthy widow, invited an acquaintance, Jonathan, to her home for dinner. Jonathan accepted the offer and, eager to impress her, spent lavishly in preparing for the evening. His purchases included a new blazer, new shoes, and expensive floral arrangement, and champagne. At the agreed upon time, Jonathan arrived at Rosalie’s house only to find that she had left for the evening. Jonathan went home and sent Rosalie an email saying that he came for dinner but she was not home. The next day Rosalie sent Jonathan an email saying that she was sorry that she had forgotten the dinner and had gone to the theater with friends.
1. Assume that the facts given are admitted and not in dispute. Jonathan wants to sue Rosalie to recover some of his expenses. Can he? Why or why not?

Answer explained below

Explanation:

The requisite elements that form a binding contract are (1) offer, (2) acceptance (3) consideration (4) competency and capacity (5) mutuality of obligation and (6) written instrument, in some cases.

In the present case, except consideration all the elements are present. Written instrument is not applicable as such.

Rosalie invited Jonathan for a dinner, without any expectation of any consideration in return. In absence of a consideration, Rosalie's invitation and Jon's acceptance of it does not constitute a binding contract between the two of them.

However what remains to be seen, is whether Jon relied on Rosalie's offer to his legal detriment. As Rosalie is wealthy lady, It is reasonable only to expect that Jon would visit her appropriately to match Rosalie's social and financial status.

To that end, Jon spent lavishly to purchase expensive clothing for himself and gifts for Rosalie. Apparently Jon relied on Susan's invitation to his legal detriment and suffered a financial loss upon not finding Rosalie at home for the dinner. Detrimental reliance is an exception to contract consideration. Therefore Jon can sue Rosalie to recover damages.