About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - April 2021)

handle is hein.ali/contract0191 and id is 1 raw text is: CONTRACTS CHAPTER 3. FORMATION OF INFORMAL CONTRACTS TOPIC 4. INFORMAL CONTRACTS WITHOUT ASSENT OR CONSIDERATION § 90. Promise Reasonably Inducing Definite and Substantial Action C.A.7, 2020. Cit. in sup. (general cite). Subcontractor that submitted bids to perform carpentry work on a project to construct housing units brought promissory-estoppel and other claims against general contractor, after defendant sent plaintiff a letter of intent but ultimately declined to accept plaintiff's bids. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant. Affirming, this court held that plaintiff could not recover damages for promissory estoppel based on the letter of intent or any of plaintiff's subsequent bids under Wisconsin law, which had adopted the doctrine of promissory estoppel set forth in the Restatement of Contracts, because plaintiff knew or should have known that negotiations could fall apart before the parties entered into a binding agreement. Skyrise Construction Group, LLC v. Annex Construction, LLC, 956 F.3d 950, 958. Ala.2019. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Former employer sued former employee, alleging that employee was required to reimburse employer for his relocation expenses under the terms of the parties' relocation agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for employer and awarded it damages, but denied its claim for prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, and expenses. This court reversed in part and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of employer for interest, attorney's fees, and expenses. The court rejected employee's argument that employer breached an oral promise that it would not pursue any legal action against him, and that its claim was thus barred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel under Restatement of Contracts § 90, reasoning that, even if employer's manager of human resources entered into an oral agreement with employee during his exit interview, there was no evidence indicating that the alleged agreement was reduced to writing, and enforcement of such an oral agreement was barred by the Statute of Frauds. Arnold v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, 292 So.3d 1042, 1051. S.C.2020. Cit. in treatise and in law journal cit. in disc.; subsec. (1) quot. in ftn. Employee brought, among other things, claims of promissory estoppel, breach of contract, and quantum meruit against president of employer and CEO of employer, alleging that defendants failed to convey shares of ownership in the company pursuant to oral promises made to plaintiff during negotiations for his compensation package and over the course of his employment. The district court granted in part defendants' motion for summary judgment and certified a question to this court. This court held that the statute of limitations did not apply to promissory-estoppel claims, because the plain language of the statute indicated that it did not apply to claims in equity, and South Carolina consistently found claims brought under the doctrine of promissory estoppel to be equitable claims. The court cited Restatement of Contracts § 90 and Restatement Second of Contracts § 90 in illustrating the evolution of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, noting that the Restatement Second made the element of reliance more prominent and the remedies awarded to successful litigants more flexible. Thomerson v. DeVito, 844 S.E.2d 378, 383. COPYRIGHT ©2021 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.