thecowboy

The seventh amendment provides that "in any civil action" there is a right to a jury. That is why there is a jury. The Supreme Court has not followed this completely textually, as there are exceptions, but in general, you have a right to a jury unless you waive it.

As far as her cause of action, this was not a breach of contract cause of action. It was equitable estoppel (or "promissory estoppel" in some jurisdictions). The elements of equitable estoppel are 1. A promise. 2. Of which the promisee reasonably relies. 3. To his or her detriment. All the plaintiff had to prove in this case was that she reasonably changed her position based on a promise by the defendant. She proved her case, and won. Therefore, I do not agree that this will set a bad precedent. It is merely following existing precedent based on a very established cause of action. If the court had found there was a "contract" that was breached, it would be another story.


edit: By the way, "precedent" is only set by the judge. In this case, the jury was charged with finding the reasonableness of her actions based on the promises that he made. A jury finding does not set precedent.