Question

In classical Anglo-American contract theory, as codified by Samuel Williston in the early twentieth century, consideration was conceived as an unyielding formal requirement: a promise was legally enforceable only if exchanged for a bargained-for detriment. However, legal realists like Arthur Corbin argued that strict adherence to this formalist doctrine produced inequitable results in commercial transactions where parties routinely relied on gratuitous representations. To accommodate these equities without formally overturning the doctrine of consideration, twentieth-century courts increasingly invoked the principle of promissory estoppel. Critics of this development, such as Grant Gilmore, famously proclaimed the 'death of contract,' asserting that promissory estoppel effectively collapsed contract law into the law of torts by basing liability on injurious reliance rather than mutual consent. Yet this appraisal overlooks how commercial courts actually operationalize the doctrine. Rather than displacing bargain consideration entirely, promissory estoppel functions primarily as a gap-filling mechanism in asymmetrical preliminary negotiations—such as when a general contractor relies on a subcontractor's unrevoked bid in submitting a prime tender—thereby stabilizing transaction costs without dissolving the distinct boundary between contractual obligation and general tort liability.

Which of the following most accurately describes the primary function of the author's reference to the scenario involving a general contractor and a subcontractor?