True or False: Courts can apply equitable remedies to bind gratuitous promisors to their promises.

The statement is true. Courts can apply equitable remedies to bind gratuitous promisors to their promises, particularly under certain conditions. In the realm of contract law, a gratuitous promise is one made without consideration, meaning the promisor does not receive anything in return for their promise. Normally, such promises are not enforceable as contracts.

However, if one party relies on the promise to their detriment, a court may apply an equitable remedy to prevent the promisor from going back on their word. This principle aligns with the doctrine of estoppel, where the law prevents someone from arguing something contrary to a previous claim or behavior if it would harm someone who relied on the initial promise. Courts aim to uphold fairness and prevent unjust enrichment, recognizing that sometimes, the reliance on a gratuitous promise can create a significant obligation.

In contrast, the other options suggest restrictions on the application of equitable remedies that simply do not hold true in the general principles of law governing promises. The ability to enforce such a promise through equitable remedies does not vary by state or depend solely on whether a promise is written or spoken; the core concept lies in the reliance and fairness involved in the transaction.