Which statement regarding promissory estoppel is NOT correct?

Promissory estoppel serves as a legal principle that enforces a promise when the promisee takes action based on that promise, leading to a detriment if the promise is not fulfilled.

The assertion regarding the necessity for an action, but not a forbearance, is not accurate within the context of promissory estoppel. In fact, the doctrine encompasses situations where the promisee may either act or refrain from acting as a result of the promise. If a promise induces a promisee to forbear (the act of refraining from an action), and that forbearance is reasonable and foreseeable by the promisor, then promissory estoppel can apply. This principle acknowledges that reliance on a promise can manifest in various ways, including both affirmative actions and forbearances.

By recognizing the reliance on the promise and the resulting detriment, the correct understanding of promissory estoppel involves acknowledging its broader applicability beyond merely requiring an action. This makes the other statements more aligned with the foundational concepts of promissory estoppel, which all underscore the necessity of a promise, reliance, and the consequential actions or forbearances of the promisee.