True or False: If a gratuitous promise is relied upon to someone's detriment, they have legal recourse.

In the context of Canadian hospitality law, a gratuitous promise, which is a promise made without any consideration or compensation in return, does not generally create a legally enforceable obligation. This means that if someone relies on such a promise and suffers a detriment as a result, they typically do not have legal recourse against the promisor.

The principle behind this is rooted in contract law, which usually requires consideration — something of value exchanged between parties — for a contract to be enforceable. In this situation, the lack of consideration means that a gratuitous promise does not meet the requirements for a binding contract, even if one party relies on it to their detriment.

Therefore, without the essential element of consideration, an individual cannot easily claim damages or seek enforcement of the promise legally. Various legal doctrines like estoppel may sometimes provide a basis for recourse in specific circumstances, but they generally do not form a blanket rule allowing for claims based solely on gratuitous promises. This reinforces the notion that reliance on such promises lacks the necessary legal backbone.

Overall, the correct understanding is that gratuitous promises do not hold the same weight in legal terms, which is why believing there would be recourse in such a scenario is false.