According to Scanlon, promissory obligations are a function of a moral principle that requires certain actions in specified circumstances. He labels this “Principle F” because he sees it as a principle of fidelity.
Promise – when an intention is publicly declared to an audience it becomes a promise. Imposition – an attempt to induce cooperation from another agent (i.e. implant an intention) Obligation – an imposition with a cost or penalty for non-compliance.
Word in at the heart of human relations. As a result, promises turn out to be essential in them as they build trust, responsibility and reliance between humans. Word and promises have a great power as they involve actions towards others.
One has a moral duty to keep one's promises because making a promise will lead others to believe that you will do what you promise. Breaking the promise is then tantamount to deceiving those one promised, and since one has a moral duty not to do this, one has a moral duty to keep one's promises.
A promise is a manifestation of intent to act or refrain from acting in a specified way at some point in the future. It's communicated by one party, to at least one additional party, to signify a commitment has been made. The person manifesting intent is the Promisor.
Thus, a promise may be enforceable to the extent that the promisee has incurred substantial costs, or conferred benefits, in reasonable reliance on the promise. Promissory estoppel under Section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts is the primary enforcement mechanism when action in reliance follows the promise.
Suppose one party, the offeror, makes a statement or a promise that causes another party to rely on that statement in such a way that they are financially injured by that reliance. In that case, a court will enforce the statement or promise as if it were a valid contract.
When we make a promise, we are committing ourselves to a profound act. When we break that promise, we risk an abrupt breakdown in trust. This breakdown in trust can lead to failed relationships – both professional and personal – that can sometimes carry reciprocal consequences.
Some people make promises they can't keep because of a people-pleasing tendency, says Dr Hannam. "They want to be able to ingratiate themselves to others, they want others to like them [but] they're not being realistic about what they're actually able to do," says Dr Hannam.
Promise-keeping emerges as a moral obligation before it is a legal one, the legal duty becoming but a sanctionable extension of the moral obligation, its continuation so to speak by other means.
It is absolutely impossible for everyone to adopt and act on a principle of making false promises; if everyone did, no one would trust anyone else, or believe that they would honour their promises. False promising would be impossible, because no one would accept your promise.
As we shall argue, Kant believed that promises are binding if they are accepted, because by accept- ing a promise or offer, the offeree acquired something that became his own, namely, the offeror's choice to perform a certain act.
Reneger. According to Merriam-Webster, to “renege” means “to go back on a promise or commitment.” Therefore, a “reneger” is someone who consistently breaks their promises. If someone makes a habit of making commitments but never following through with those commitments, then you can call them a “reneger.”
A commitment is an administrative reservation of allotted funds, or of other funds, in anticipation of their obligation. Since an obligation equal to or less than the commitment may be incurred without further recourse to an authorizing official, commitments are required for some appropriations (see subparagraph 3.3.
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will ...
Black's Law Dictionary defines obligation as follows: “A formal, binding agreement or acknowledgment of a liability to pay a certain amount or to do a certain thing for a particular person or set of persons; esp., a duty arising by contract.” And it defines covenant as “A formal agreement or promise, usu.
A promise-breaker would probably have the clearest meaning of them all, but it's not the 'one word' you might be looking for. Reneger is a good alternative.
Narcissists break promises, and there are probably a number of reasons. They made the promise in order to manipulate the situation, and they only said what they said to get the result they were looking for. In other words, they will say whatever they have to say to get what they want.
5 It is better not to promise anything than to promise something and not do it. 6 Don't let your words cause you to sin, and don't say to the priest at the Temple, "I didn't mean what I promised." If you do, God will become angry with your words and will destroy everything you have worked for.
It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the [temple] messenger, "My vow was a mistake." Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands?
A lot of people make empty promises to feel better about what they are promising, so they don't feel guilty. If you truly had good intentions, you wouldn't be making an empty promise. You are sparing feelings/arguments in the short run, but setting yourself up for failure in the long run.
The exact length of California's statute of limitations depends on whether the debt is based on a written contract or oral promise. In the case of a written contract, the statute of limitations is four years. But if it is an oral promise, the limitation period is just two years.
Contrary to what most believe, an informal exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract.
Within contract law, promissory estoppel refers to the doctrine that a party may recover on the basis of a promise made when the party's reliance on that promise was reasonable, and the party attempting to recover detrimentally relied on the promise.