Promissory Estoppel - Clear & Definite Promise

admin//August 13, 2012//

Listen to this article

Appellant challenged the District Court’s judgment in favor of respondents on respondents’ claim of promissory estoppel. On appeal from the District Court’s denial of its posttrial motion for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, appellant argued that: (1) the District Court’s factual findings as to appellant’s clear and definite promise and respondents’ reasonable reliance are clearly erroneous; (2) the District Court erroneously concluded that enforcement of appellant’s promise was necessary to prevent injustice; and (3) the District Court abused its discretion in awarding damages. The District Court found that the manager of appellant’s corporate travel department made a clear and definite promise to respondents that “a signed lodging contract would be forthcoming” if the building was renovated to meet appellant’s standards. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s conclusions were correct. Affirmed.