Free Newsletter
Promissory Estoppel – Reliance
cassiejohnson//April 3, 2015//
Appellant general contractor challenged the District Court’s dismissal of its promissory estoppel claim against respondent subcontractor. Appellant argued that the District Court erred by concluding that (1) appellant did not rely to its detriment on respondent’s promise to complete the work on time and (2) respondent’s promise need not be enforced to avoid injustice. The Court of Appeals concluded that, based on the evidence, the District Court did not err by finding that the record was incomplete for purposes of determining whether appellant substantially completed the project by a specific date, and any reliance that appellant had on respondent’s promise to complete the project on time was not reasonable. Affirmed.
A14-0678 KBW Assoc., Inc. v. W.L. Hall Co. (Clay County)
Top News
- Who is liable when AI goes rogue? Lawyers see new risks
- Trump says he’ll bring ballroom fight to Supreme Court after lower court halts work
- Trump tries new tack against birthright citizenship after Supreme Court snub
- Justices void contractor’s lien, deny legal fees in construction suit
- Judicial Branch announces death of OLPR’S Humiston
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Taylor-Travis marriage recalls prenup laws here
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Fast-Tracking Temporary Lawyer Suspensions
- Perspectives: ‘Slam’ suits: Recalling wrestling cases as WWE arrives
- Best At Work Insights: We tore out the workforce backup generator
Legal Tech
- Criminal defense lawyers have duty to use AI, paper argues
- AI is reshaping family law practice, but attorneys worry about DIY research
- Massachusetts court rejects work product protection for AI documents by girlfriend
