In business, not every agreement needs to be written in ink to be binding—especially when one party makes a clear promise, and the other relies on it in good faith. This principle lies at the heart of a legal doctrine called Promissory Estoppel, and it became a pivotal issue in my working relationship with Verdant Strategies.
Here’s what happened.
A Clear Promise: $5,000–$6,000 Per Month
In late December, Verdant Strategies made a specific and reasonable offer: a new role for me (Joseph) focused exclusively on SEO, with a monthly compensation range of $5,000 to $6,000. This wasn’t a casual idea tossed around during a meeting—it was a detailed proposal with a defined budget, expanded responsibilities, and a clear plan to transition me from my content management role into a more strategic SEO leadership position.
This proposal came after I had already submitted a comprehensive two-year SEO strategy and began discussions about how my expertise could help Verdant strengthen its organic growth.
Relying on the Agreement in Good Faith
Based on that proposal—and in the absence of any objection or modification from the company—I began preparing SEO frameworks, processes, and content planning resources. I dedicated time, attention, and energy to the success of this new phase of the project, believing the promise was legitimate.
There were no messages walking it back. No warnings. No, “let’s put a pin in that.” The silence implied acceptance. In fact, their language expressed confidence in moving forward, with statements like, “I trust you to lead these efforts.”
So I did.
Then the Offer Was Pulled Without Cause
After all that investment and effort, Verdant Strategies abruptly withdrew the offer—without warning or explanation. Not only was the transition canceled, but I was falsely accused of breaching my original agreement. I was then terminated, with no acknowledgment of the work I had already done or the reasonable expectations that had been set in motion.
This sudden reversal didn’t just stop a project—it caused real financial harm. I had turned down other work opportunities in good faith, based on the reasonable expectation that a multi-month engagement was beginning. That opportunity was cut short without just cause.
The Legal Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
This isn’t just a moral issue—it’s a legal one.
Under the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, if one party makes a clear promise and the other party reasonably relies on that promise to their detriment, the law may enforce the promise even in the absence of a formal contract.
In this case, Verdant Strategies:
- Made a specific promise with defined terms,
- Knew I was acting in reliance on that promise,
- Did not immediately reject or modify it,
- Allowed me to invest time and resources in preparation,
- And then pulled the offer after I had already begun work.
This isn’t a gray area. It’s a textbook example of detrimental reliance—and the financial consequences are both measurable and enforceable.
Final Thoughts
Contracts aren’t always about paperwork—they’re about expectations, behavior, and integrity. When a company like Verdant Strategies makes a promise, benefits from your preparation, and then tries to walk away without consequence, that’s not just a poor business practice—it’s potentially unlawful.
This experience is part of why I’m sharing my journey publicly. As I continue to document real-world examples of contract law in action, I hope it serves as a resource for other freelancers, contractors, and business professionals navigating similar situations.
Because in the end, your word should matter—even when it’s not on paper.
—
Want to follow more legal case studies from a contractor’s point of view? Subscribe to my blog and join the conversation on LinkedIn. Your rights don’t stop at the handshake—and neither should your power.
