It was almost time for the Heeleys to renew the mortgage on their home and they were considering their options. The mortgage was currently held by the Big Bank and the Heeleys were not satisfied with the service they had received from the Big Bank's mortgage staff. Recently, the local radio station had been airing commercials for the Little Bank, which suggested that people switch their mortgages to Little Bank to take advantage of better rates and more personal service. As a special incentive, the commercials stated that, for a limited time, for every mortgage over $50,000 which was brought to Little Bank from another financial institution, Little Bank would give the customer an all-expense-paid trip to Mexico. Feeling in need of a vacation, the Heeleys decided to take advantage of this incentive and made an appointment to see the manager of Little Bank. During their meeting the manager explained that the Mexico trip would be given on mortgages brought within the next month. The Heeleys mortgage did not expire at Big Bank for another six weeks, however the manager said it should not be a problem awarding them the trip for having made the commitment within the advertised period to transfer their mortgage. At the end of the six weeks, the Heeleys transferred their mortgage to Little Bank and delivered the paperwork needed by the bank to set up their trip. Several days later the Heeleys received a telephone call from the head office of the Little Bank informing them that they were not eligible to receive the trip as their mortgage had not been transferred within the offer period.
Discuss the legal issues that arise as a result of this case. What legal principles might the Heeleys and the bank apply to support their respective positions, and what would be the likely result should legal action ensue?

The legal issues that arise in this case include breach of contract, misrepresentation, and potential fraudulent advertising. The Heeleys relied on the advertisement from Little Bank, which promised an all-expense-paid trip to Mexico for transferring their mortgage within a specific time frame. The manager of Little Bank assured them that they would be eligible for the trip, even though their mortgage would not expire at Big Bank for another six weeks. However, after the transfer was completed, the head office of Little Bank informed them that they were not eligible for the trip.

The legal principle that the Heeleys could apply to support their position is promissory estoppel. This principle states that if one party makes a promise to another party and the other party relies on that promise to their detriment, the party making the promise may be estopped from going back on their promise. In this case, the Heeleys relied on the promise of the trip and transferred their mortgage based on that promise, to their detriment.

On the other hand, the bank may argue that the terms and conditions of the offer were clearly stated and that the Heeleys did not meet the eligibility requirements for the trip. They may also argue that the manager did not have the authority to promise the trip to the Heeleys.

If legal action ensues, the likely result would depend on the specific facts and evidence presented. The court would have to determine whether the advertisement and the manager's promise constituted a binding contract, and whether the Heeleys reasonably relied on the promise to their detriment. If the court finds in favor of the Heeleys, they may be entitled to damages for the cost of the trip or other compensation. If the court finds in favor of the bank, the Heeleys may not be entitled to any compensation. It is important to note that the outcome of legal action would depend on the specific laws and regulations in the jurisdiction where the case is heard.